Re: [Q] Default SLAB allocator

[David Rientjes]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:

> >> SLUB is a non-starter for us and incurs a >10% performance degradation in
> >> netperf TCP_RR.
> >
> 
> Where are you seeing that?
> 

In my benchmarking results.

> Notice that many defconfigs are for embedded devices,
> and many of them say "use SLAB"; I wonder if that's right.
> 

If a device doesn't require the smallest memory footprint possible (SLOB) 
then SLAB is the right choice when there's a limited amount of memory; 
SLUB requires higher order pages for the best performance (on my desktop 
system running with CONFIG_SLUB, over 50% of the slab caches default to be 
high order).

> Is there any intention to replace SLAB by SLUB?

There may be an intent, but it'll be nacked as long as there's a 
performance degradation.

> In that case it could make sense to change defconfigs, although
> it wouldn't be based on any actual tests.
> 

Um, you can't just go changing defconfigs without doing some due diligence 
in ensuring it won't be deterimental for those users.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/