Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 13 Oct 2012 02:54:49 -0700 (PDT) | From | David Rientjes <> | Subject | Re: [Q] Default SLAB allocator |
| |
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.
| |