From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 245CE6B01B0 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 13:40:53 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 03:40:45 +1000 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [RFC V2 SLEB 00/14] The Enhanced(hopefully) Slab Allocator Message-ID: <20100525174045.GI20853@laptop> References: <20100525093410.GH5087@laptop> <20100525101924.GJ5087@laptop> <20100525154352.GB20853@laptop> <20100525171959.GH20853@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Linus Torvalds , Christoph Lameter , Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Zhang Yanmin , Matthew Wilcox , Matt Mackall , Mel Gorman List-ID: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 08:35:05PM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Nick Piggin wrote: > >> I'm not totally convinced but I guess we're about to find that out. > >> How do you propose we benchmark SLAB while we clean it up > > > > Well the first pass will be code cleanups, bootstrap simplifications. > > Then looking at what debugging features were implemented in SLUB but not > > SLAB and what will be useful to bring over from there. > > Bootstrap might be easy to clean up but the biggest source of cruft > comes from the deeply inlined, complex allocation paths. Cleaning > those up is bound to cause performance regressions if you're not > careful. Oh I see what you mean, just straight-line code speed regressions could bite us when doing cleanups. That's possible. I'll keep a close eye on generated asm. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org