On Friday 16 January 2009 17:55:47 Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 05:46:23PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Intel's OLTP shows SLQB is "neutral" to SLAB. That is, literally within > > their measurement confidence interval. If it comes down to it, I think we > > could get them to do more runs to narrow that down, but we're talking a > > couple of tenths of a percent already. > > I think I can speak with some measure of confidence for at least the > OLTP-testing part of my company when I say that I have no objection to > Nick's planned merge scheme. > > I believe the kernel benchmark group have also done some testing with > SLQB and have generally positive things to say about it (Yanmin added to > the gargantuan cc). > > Did slabtop get fixed to work with SLQB? Yes the old slabtop that works on /proc/slabinfo works with SLQB (ie. SLQB implements /proc/slabinfo). Lin Ming recently also ported the SLUB /sys/kernel/slab/ specific slabinfo tool to SLQB. Basically it reports in-depth internal event counts etc. and can operate on individual caches, making it very useful for performance "observability" and tuning. It is hard to come up with a single set of statistics that apply usefully to all the allocators. FWIW, it would be a useful tool to port over to SLAB too, if we end up deciding to go with SLAB. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
