From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from psmtp.com (na3sys010amx206.postini.com [74.125.245.206]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3A93A6B0044 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:07:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-ie0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 10so5722024ied.14 for ; Fri, 12 Oct 2012 05:07:04 -0700 (PDT) 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes , Andi Kleen Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-mm@kvack.org, Tim Bird , celinux-dev@lists.celinuxforum.org 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, 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