Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933436Ab2JKW7X (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:59:23 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:63435 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932327Ab2JKW7V (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2012 18:59:21 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 15:59:19 -0700 (PDT) From: David Rientjes X-X-Sender: rientjes@chino.kir.corp.google.com To: Andi Kleen cc: Ezequiel Garcia , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org, Tim Bird , celinux-dev@lists.celinuxforum.org Subject: Re: [Q] Default SLAB allocator In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 650 Lines: 16 On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Andi Kleen wrote: > > While I've always thought SLUB was the default and recommended allocator, > > I'm surprise to find that it's not always the case: > > iirc the main performance reasons for slab over slub have mostly > disappeared, so in theory slab could be finally deprecated now. > SLUB is a non-starter for us and incurs a >10% performance degradation in netperf TCP_RR. -- 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/