From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EBE26B02A3 for ; Fri, 16 Jul 2010 04:23:37 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C4016FD.9080207@cs.helsinki.fi> Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:23:25 +0300 From: Pekka Enberg MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [S+Q2 00/19] SLUB with queueing (V2) beats SLAB netperf TCP_RR References: <20100709190706.938177313@quilx.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin List-ID: David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jul 2010, Christoph Lameter wrote: > >> The following patchset cleans some pieces up and then equips SLUB with >> per cpu queues that work similar to SLABs queues. > > Pekka, I think patches 4-8 could be applied to your tree now, they're > relatively unchanged from what's been posted before. (I didn't ack patch > 9 because I think it makes slab_lock() -> slab_unlock() matching more > difficult with little win, but I don't feel strongly about it.) Yup, I applied 4-8. Thanks guys! > I'd also consider patch 7 for 2.6.35-rc6 (and -stable). It's an obvious bug fix but is it triggered in practice? Is there a bugzilla report for that? -- 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