From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:00:43 -0800 Message-ID: <20090115230043.57caae5d.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <200901161503.13730.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20090115201210.ca1a9542.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <200901161746.25205.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:49531 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753044AbZAPHBr (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2009 02:01:47 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200901161746.25205.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, sfr@canb.auug.org.au, matthew@wil.cx, matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com, chinang.ma@intel.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, sharad.c.tripathi@intel.com, arjan@linux.intel.com, andi.kleen@intel.com, suresh.b.siddha@intel.com, harita.chilukuri@intel.com, douglas.w.styner@intel.com, peter.xihong.wang@intel.com, hubert.nueckel@intel.com, chris.mason@oracle.com, srostedt@redhat.com, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, andrew.vasquez@qlogic.com, anirban.chakraborty@qlogic.com On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:46:23 +1100 Nick Piggin wrote: > On Friday 16 January 2009 15:12:10 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:03:12 +1100 Nick Piggin > wrote: > > > I would like to see SLQB merged in mainline, made default, and wait for > > > some number releases. Then we take what we know, and try to make an > > > informed decision about the best one to take. I guess that is problematic > > > in that the rest of the kernel is moving underneath us. Do you have > > > another idea? > > > > Nope. If it doesn't work out, we can remove it again I guess. > > OK, I have these numbers to show I'm not completely off my rocker to suggest > we merge SLQB :) Given these results, how about I ask to merge SLQB as default > in linux-next, then if nothing catastrophic happens, merge it upstream in the > next merge window, then a couple of releases after that, given some time to > test and tweak SLQB, then we plan to bite the bullet and emerge with just one > main slab allocator (plus SLOB). That's a plan. > SLQB tends to be the winner here. Can you think of anything with which it will be the loser?