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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
