Christoph Lameter wrote: > Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 07:21:01PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > >> - Add a patch that obsoletes SLAB and explains why SLOB does not support > >> defrag (Either of those could be theoretically equipped to support > >> slab defrag in some way but it seems that Andrew/Linus want to reduce > >> the number of slab allocators). > > > > Do we have to once again explain that slab still outperforms slub on at > > least one important benchmark? I hope Nick Piggin finds time to finish > > tuning slqb; it already outperforms slub. > > > > Uhh. I forgot to delete that statement. I did not include the patch > in the series. > > We have a fundamental issue design issue there. Queuing on free can result in > better performance as in SLAB. However, it limits concurrency (per node lock > taking) and causes latency spikes due to queue processing (f.e. one test load > had 118.65 vs. 34 usecs just by switching to SLUB). Vaguely on this topic, has anyone studied the effects of SLAB/SLUB etc. on MMUless systems? -- Jamie -- 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
