On Tue, 25 May 2010, Nick Piggin wrote: > I don't think SLUB ever proved itself very well. The selling points > were some untestable handwaving about how queueing is bad and jitter > is bad, ignoring the fact that queues could be shortened and periodic > reaping disabled at runtime with SLAB style of allocator. It also > has relied heavily on higher order allocations which put great strain > on hugepage allocations and page reclaim (witness the big slowdown > in low memory conditions when tmpfs was using higher order allocations > via SLUB). > I agree that the higher order allocations is a major problem and slub relies heavily on them for being able to utilize both the allocation and freeing fastpaths for a number of caches. For systems with a very large amount of memory that isn't fully utilized and fragmentation isn't an issue, this works fine, but for users who use all their memory and do some amount of reclaim it comes at a significant cost. The cpu slab thrashing problem that I identified with the netperf TCP_RR benchmark can be heavily reduced by tuning certain kmalloc caches to allocate higher order slabs, but that makes it very difficult to run with hugepages and the allocation slowpath even slower. There are commandline workarounds to prevent slub from using these higher order allocations, but the performance of the allocator then suffers as a result. > SLUB has not been able to displace SLAB for a long timedue to > performance and higher order allocation problems. > Completely agreed. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>