Re: tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario?

[Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:

> The impression I got at vm meeting was that SLUB was good to go :(

Its not? I have had Intel test this thoroughly and they assured me that it 
is up to SLAB. This particular case is an synthetic tests for a PAGE_SIZE 
alloc and SLUB was not optimized for that case because PAGE_SIZEd 
allocations should be handled by the page allocators. Quicklists were 
introduced for the explicit purpose to get these messy page sized cases 
out of the slab allocators.

> But slab allocations don't really control the macro behaviour of a
> benchmark like that so much. So don't wait until something happens
> with the scheduler, fix it now.

Ok so you are for pushing in the page allocator pass through patch from mm 
into rc6? Isnt it a bit late for such a change? I would think that 2.6.24
is early enough.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/