Re: [Q] Default SLAB allocator

[David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:

> >> SLUB is a non-starter for us and incurs a >10% performance degradation in
> >> netperf TCP_RR.
> >
> 
> Where are you seeing that?
> 

In my benchmarking results.

> Notice that many defconfigs are for embedded devices,
> and many of them say "use SLAB"; I wonder if that's right.
> 

If a device doesn't require the smallest memory footprint possible (SLOB) 
then SLAB is the right choice when there's a limited amount of memory; 
SLUB requires higher order pages for the best performance (on my desktop 
system running with CONFIG_SLUB, over 50% of the slab caches default to be 
high order).

> Is there any intention to replace SLAB by SLUB?

There may be an intent, but it'll be nacked as long as there's a 
performance degradation.

> In that case it could make sense to change defconfigs, although
> it wouldn't be based on any actual tests.
> 

Um, you can't just go changing defconfigs without doing some due diligence 
in ensuring it won't be deterimental for those users.

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>