Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751037AbVLTOET (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:04:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751038AbVLTOET (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:04:19 -0500 Received: from ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com ([24.24.2.55]:26805 "EHLO ms-smtp-01.nyroc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751029AbVLTOET (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:04:19 -0500 Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:04:05 -0500 (EST) From: Steven Rostedt X-X-Sender: rostedt@gandalf.stny.rr.com To: Ingo Molnar cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gunter Ohrner , john stultz Subject: Re: 2.6.15-rc5-rt2 slowness In-Reply-To: <20051220135725.GA29392@elte.hu> Message-ID: References: <1134790400.13138.160.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1134860251.13138.193.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051220133230.GC24408@elte.hu> <20051220135725.GA29392@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1665 Lines: 42 On Tue, 20 Dec 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > > Now, is the solution to bring the SLOB up to par with the SLAB, or to > > > > make the SLAB as close to possible to the mainline (why remove NUMA?) > > > > and keep it for PREEMPT_RT? > > > > > > > > Below is the port of the slab changes if anyone else would like to see > > > > if this speeds things up for them. > > > > > > ok, i've added this back in - but we really need a cleaner port of SLAB > > > ... > > > > > > > Actually, how much do you want that SLOB code? For the last couple of > > days I've been working on different approaches that can speed it up. > > Right now I have one that takes advantage of the different caches. > > But unfortunately, I'm dealing with a bad pointer some where that > > keeps making it bug. Argh! > > well, the SLOB is mainly about being simple and small. So as long as > those speedups are SMP-only, they ought to be fine. The problems are > mainly SMP related, correct? Actually, no. My test is to do a make install over NFS of a kernel that has already been built. The times I'm getting for the SLAB is ~26 seconds, the time for the SLOB is 1 minute 32 seconds. So your looking at >300% slowness here. The test bed is a UP. (I do that first before looking into SMP). I'm still trying to keep the SLOB simple. It's the lack of sleep that is making it hard ;) -- Steve - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/