Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> Now, is the solution to bring the SLOB up to par with the SLAB, or to
>>>> make the SLAB as close to possible to the mainline (why remove NUMA?)
>>>> and keep it for PREEMPT_RT?
>>>>
>>>> Below is the port of the slab changes if anyone else would like to see
>>>> if this speeds things up for them.
>>> ok, i've added this back in - but we really need a cleaner port of SLAB
>>> ...
>>>
>> Actually, how much do you want that SLOB code? For the last couple of
>> days I've been working on different approaches that can speed it up.
>> Right now I have one that takes advantage of the different caches.
>> But unfortunately, I'm dealing with a bad pointer some where that
>> keeps making it bug. Argh!
>
> well, the SLOB is mainly about being simple and small. So as long as
> those speedups are SMP-only, they ought to be fine. The problems are
> mainly SMP related, correct?
>
> Ingo
No. I experienced horrible performance running the original patch with
the SLOB on my uniprocessor system vs. the patch with Steven's SLAB
patch applied on the same system. In fact I am currently running the
latter on that system now. With the original patch the system is really
unusable.
--
kr
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
