Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750764AbVLTPaN (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:30:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751090AbVLTPaN (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:30:13 -0500 Received: from mtai03.charter.net ([209.225.8.183]:34244 "EHLO mtai03.charter.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750764AbVLTPaM (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:30:12 -0500 X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAA+k= Message-ID: <43A822A0.4020101@cybsft.com> Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 09:26:24 -0600 From: "K.R. Foley" Organization: Cybersoft Solutions, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar CC: Steven Rostedt , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gunter Ohrner , john stultz Subject: Re: 2.6.15-rc5-rt2 slowness References: <1134790400.13138.160.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1134860251.13138.193.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051220133230.GC24408@elte.hu> <20051220135725.GA29392@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20051220135725.GA29392@elte.hu> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1517 Lines: 37 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? > > Ingo No. I experienced horrible performance running the original patch with the SLOB on my uniprocessor system vs. the patch with Steven's SLAB patch applied on the same system. In fact I am currently running the latter on that system now. With the original patch the system is really unusable. -- kr - 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/