From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 14:35:18 -0800 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: SLUB tbench regression due to page allocator deficiency Message-Id: <20080209143518.ced71a48.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Mel Gorman , linux-mm@kvack.org, Nick Piggin , Pekka J Enberg List-ID: On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 13:45:11 -0800 (PST) Christoph Lameter wrote: > Isnt there a way that we can make the page allocator handle PAGE_SIZEd > allocations in such a way that is competitive with the slab allocators? > The cycle count for an allocation needs to be <100 not just below 1000 as > it is now. > Well. Where are the cycles spent? We are notorious for sucking but I don't think even we suck enough to have left a 10x optimisation opportunity in the core page allocator ;) > include/linux/slub_def.h | 6 +++--- > mm/slub.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++-------- I am worrried by a patch which squeezes a few percent out of tbench. Does it improve real things? Does anything regress? -- 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/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org