From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail138.messagelabs.com (mail138.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.35]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB4A490014E for ; Mon, 1 Aug 2011 08:06:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vwm42 with SMTP id 42so2807719vwm.14 for ; Mon, 01 Aug 2011 05:06:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1312145146.24862.97.camel@jaguar> Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 15:06:19 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1 From: Pekka Enberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Christoph Lameter , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , hughd@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 12:55 AM, David Rientjes wrote: > I'm very confident that slub could beat slab on any system if you throw > enough memory at it because its fastpaths are extremely efficient, but > there's no business case for that. Btw, I haven't measured this recently but in my testing, SLAB has pretty much always used more memory than SLUB. So 'throwing more memory at the problem' is definitely a reasonable approach for SLUB. Pekka -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org