All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@gmail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	rientjes@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: reduce overhead of slub_debug
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:55:59 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1310064959.3637.12.camel@calx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1310064771.21902.55.camel@jaguar>

On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 21:52 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > Looks good to me. Christoph, David, ?
> 
> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:17 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > The reason debug code is there is because it is useless overhead typically
> > not needed. There is no point in optimizing the code that is not run in
> > production environments unless there are gross performance issues that
> > make debugging difficult. A performance patch for debugging would have to
> > cause significant performance improvements. This patch does not do that
> > nor was there such an issue to be addressed in the first place.
> 
> Is there something technically wrong with the patch? Quoting the patch
> email:
> 
>   (Compiling some project with different options)
>                                  make -j12    make clean
>   slub_debug disabled:             1m 27s       1.2 s
>   slub_debug enabled:              1m 46s       7.6 s
>   slub_debug enabled + this patch: 1m 33s       3.2 s
> 
>   check_bytes still shows up high, but not always at the top.
> 
> That's significant enough speedup for me!

We're not going to make any progress on this; Christoph conveniently
forgets the counterarguments from week to week.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
	Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@gmail.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	rientjes@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: reduce overhead of slub_debug
Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:55:59 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1310064959.3637.12.camel@calx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1310064771.21902.55.camel@jaguar>

On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 21:52 +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > > Looks good to me. Christoph, David, ?
> 
> On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 13:17 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > The reason debug code is there is because it is useless overhead typically
> > not needed. There is no point in optimizing the code that is not run in
> > production environments unless there are gross performance issues that
> > make debugging difficult. A performance patch for debugging would have to
> > cause significant performance improvements. This patch does not do that
> > nor was there such an issue to be addressed in the first place.
> 
> Is there something technically wrong with the patch? Quoting the patch
> email:
> 
>   (Compiling some project with different options)
>                                  make -j12    make clean
>   slub_debug disabled:             1m 27s       1.2 s
>   slub_debug enabled:              1m 46s       7.6 s
>   slub_debug enabled + this patch: 1m 33s       3.2 s
> 
>   check_bytes still shows up high, but not always at the top.
> 
> That's significant enough speedup for me!

We're not going to make any progress on this; Christoph conveniently
forgets the counterarguments from week to week.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2011-07-07 18:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-06-26 19:39 [PATCH] slub: reduce overhead of slub_debug Marcin Slusarz
2011-06-26 19:39 ` Marcin Slusarz
2011-06-28 19:32 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-06-28 19:32   ` Christoph Lameter
2011-06-28 19:40   ` David Daney
2011-06-28 19:40     ` David Daney
2011-06-28 20:58     ` David Rientjes
2011-06-28 20:58       ` David Rientjes
2011-06-28 21:04       ` Ben Greear
2011-06-28 21:04         ` Ben Greear
2011-06-28 21:10         ` David Rientjes
2011-06-28 21:10           ` David Rientjes
2011-06-28 21:16       ` Dave Jones
2011-06-28 21:16         ` Dave Jones
2011-07-07 18:07 ` Pekka Enberg
2011-07-07 18:07   ` Pekka Enberg
2011-07-07 18:17   ` Christoph Lameter
2011-07-07 18:17     ` Christoph Lameter
2011-07-07 18:30     ` Ben Greear
2011-07-07 18:30       ` Ben Greear
2011-07-07 18:42       ` Christoph Lameter
2011-07-07 18:42         ` Christoph Lameter
2011-07-07 18:54         ` Ben Greear
2011-07-07 18:54           ` Ben Greear
2011-07-07 18:30     ` Matt Mackall
2011-07-07 18:30       ` Matt Mackall
2011-07-07 18:52     ` Pekka Enberg
2011-07-07 18:52       ` Pekka Enberg
2011-07-07 18:55       ` Matt Mackall [this message]
2011-07-07 18:55         ` Matt Mackall
2011-07-07 19:12       ` Christoph Lameter
2011-07-07 19:12         ` Christoph Lameter
2011-07-07 19:21         ` David Miller
2011-07-07 19:21           ` David Miller
2011-07-07 19:49           ` Pekka Enberg
2011-07-07 19:49             ` Pekka Enberg
2011-07-07 20:12             ` Christoph Lameter
2011-07-07 20:12               ` Christoph Lameter
2011-07-08  5:23               ` Andi Kleen
2011-07-08  5:23                 ` Andi Kleen
2011-07-08 17:41                 ` Christoph Lameter
2011-07-08 17:41                   ` Christoph Lameter
2011-07-08  5:38               ` Pekka Enberg
2011-07-08  5:38                 ` Pekka Enberg

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=1310064959.3637.12.camel@calx \
    --to=mpm@selenic.com \
    --cc=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=marcin.slusarz@gmail.com \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --cc=rientjes@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.