On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 23:16 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 14:11 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > If you aren't even motivated to fix the problems that have been reported,
> > > then SLUB isn't even a _potential_ solution, it's purely a problem, and
> > > since I am not IN THE LEAST interested in having three different
> > > allocators around, SLUB is going to get axed.
> >
> > Not motivated? I have analyzed the problem in detail and when it comes
> > down to it there is not much impact that I can see in real life
> > applications. I have always responded to the regression reported also via
> > TPC-C.
>
> But you are dismissing the hackbench regression, which is not a small
> one. It runs an astonishing 10x slower.
>
BTW, does /proc/slabinfo exist again? I thought we set that as a
requirement for SLUB to be the default and a full replacement for SLAB.
--
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]
