On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:50 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:38:15 -0700 (PDT) > Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Yeah the fastpath vs. slow path is not the issue as Siddha and I > > concluded earlier. Seems that we are mainly seeing cacheline bouncing > > due to two cpus accessing meta data in the same page struct. The > > patches in MM that are scheduled to be merged for .24 address > > > Ok every time something says anything not 100% positive about SLUB you > come back with "but it's fixed in the next patch set"... *every time*. > > To be honest, to me that sounds that SLUB isn't ready for prime time > yet, or at least not ready to be the only one in town... > > The day that the answer is "the kernel.org slub is fixing all the > issues" is when it's ready.. Arjan, to be honest, there has been some confusion on _what_ code has been tested with what results. And with Christoph not able to reproduce these results locally, it is very hard for him to fix it proper. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
