Re: [PATCH 0/1] mm: Remove the SLAB allocator

[Pekka Enberg]

Hi,

On 4/11/19 10:55 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> Please please have it more rigorous then what happened when SLUB was
> forced to become a default

This is the hard part.

Even if you are able to show that SLUB is as fast as SLAB for all the 
benchmarks you run, there's bound to be that one workload where SLUB 
regresses. You will then have people complaining about that (rightly so) 
and you're again stuck with two allocators.

To move forward, I think we should look at possible *pathological* cases 
where we think SLAB might have an advantage. For example, SLUB had much 
more difficulties with remote CPU frees than SLAB. Now I don't know if 
this is the case, but it should be easy to construct a synthetic 
benchmark to measure this.

For example, have a userspace process that does networking, which is 
often memory allocation intensive, so that we know that SKBs traverse 
between CPUs. You can do this by making sure that the NIC queues are 
mapped to CPU N (so that network softirqs have to run on that CPU) but 
the process is pinned to CPU M.

It's, of course, worth thinking about other pathological cases too. 
Workloads that cause large allocations is one. Workloads that cause lots 
of slab cache shrinking is another.

- Pekka