Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754210AbZGJJTR (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:19:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752267AbZGJJTG (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:19:06 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:50015 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751540AbZGJJTE (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:19:04 -0400 Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:19:03 +0200 From: Nick Piggin To: David Rientjes Cc: Ingo Molnar , Pekka Enberg , Janboe Ye , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vegard.nossum@gmail.com, graydon@redhat.com, fche@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Check write to slab memory which freed already using mudflap Message-ID: <20090710091903.GE14666@wotan.suse.de> References: <1247156020.27671.40.camel@debian-nb> <84144f020907090944u51f60cbsc0a4ec2c2cbdcc8c@mail.gmail.com> <20090710084745.GA26752@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1663 Lines: 37 On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 02:04:53AM -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > SLAB is (slowly) going away so you might want to port this to SLUB > > > as well so we can merge both. > > > > and SLQB which will replace both? :-/ > > > > I'm not sure what the status of slqb is, although I would have expected it > to have been pushed for inclusion in 2.6.31 as a slab allocator > alternative. Nick, any forecast for inclusion? Just had a hiccup with testing in the last cycle, so we decided not to merge it this time. I hope next window. > SLUB has a pretty noticeable performance degradation on benchmarks such as > netperf TCP_RR with high numbers of threads (see my post about it: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123839191416472). CONFIG_SLAB is the > optimal configuration for workloads that share similiar slab thrashing > patterns (which my patchset dealt with in an indirect way and yet still > didn't match slab's performance). I haven't yet seen data that suggests > anything other than CONFIG_SLAB has parity with such a benchmark. I did do various netperf runs, but I can't remember whether I tried to reproduce your test case with SLQB. I'll try ;) I don't think there are any known performance regressions for SLQB versus others, but OTOH I don't think it has been widely performance tested (I don't think many people performance test -next). -- 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/