Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759564Ab2JLMHG (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:07:06 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174]:61192 "EHLO mail-ie0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759066Ab2JLMHF (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:07:05 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:07:04 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Q] Default SLAB allocator From: Ezequiel Garcia To: David Rientjes , Andi Kleen Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org, Tim Bird , celinux-dev@lists.celinuxforum.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1112 Lines: 33 Hi, On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Andi Kleen wrote: > David Rientjes writes: > >> 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. > Where are you seeing that? Notice that many defconfigs are for embedded devices, and many of them say "use SLAB"; I wonder if that's right. Is there any intention to replace SLAB by SLUB? In that case it could make sense to change defconfigs, although it wouldn't be based on any actual tests. Ezequiel -- 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/