2010/11/18 Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 17:23 -0800, Darren Hart wrote: >> On 11/17/2010 08:18 AM, Jean-Michel Hautbois wrote: >> > Hi ! >> > >> > I am wondering why SLUB isn't supported with PREEMPT_RT ? >> > I cannot find any info on that except the fact it is not working yet. >> > What do we have to do in order to support it ? >> >> Peter can answer this better than I can, but it has something to do with >> all the local_bh_disable() calls not being compatible with the goals of >> PREEMPT_RT - if I remember correctly. > > Nah, its slub doens't use the softirq crap. But its close, you have to > iron out the per-cpu assumptions in the thing. I did a few slub-rt ports > at various times but the thing kept changing too much and I gave up. > > I should probably do a new port and hope the thing is more stable now > that the excitement is down or somesuch. > My real question is the impact of SLUB compared to SLAB on the determinism of kmalloc usage and all caches. I did some tests using SLUB instead of SLAB on a small (MPC5200 / 400Mhz / 16k i-cache and 16k d-cache), and slub seems to be better. But I don't know if there is a possibility to tune SLAB in order to get good results. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-rt-users" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
