Message-ID: <48966B6D.604@keyaccess.nl>
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 04:37:33 +0200
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080707)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
CC: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>,
       Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
       Mel Gorman <mel@skynet.ie>, andi@firstfloor.org,
       Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finished
 making slub perform as well
References: <20080801182324.572058187@lameter.com> <20080803015847.GD26461@parisc-linux.org> <4896225D.9090203@cs.helsinki.fi>
In-Reply-To: <4896225D.9090203@cs.helsinki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 948
Lines: 24

On 03-08-08 23:25, Pekka Enberg wrote:

> Matthew Wilcox wrote:

>> Do we have to once again explain that slab still outperforms slub on at
>> least one important benchmark?  I hope Nick Piggin finds time to finish
>> tuning slqb; it already outperforms slub.
> 
> No, you don't have to. I haven't merged that patch nor do I intend to do 
> so until the regressions are fixed.
> 
> And yes, I'm still waiting to hear from you how we're now doing with 
> higher order page allocations...

General interested question -- I recently "accidentally" read some of 
slub and I believe that it doesn't feature the cache colouring support 
that slab did? Is that true, and if so, wasn't it needed/useful?

Rene.
--
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/