Re: Major regression on hackbench with SLUB (more numbers)

Peter Zijlstra
2007-12-21T22:18:08Z

On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 23:16 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-12-21 at 14:11 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > > If you aren't even motivated to fix the problems that have been reported,
> > > then SLUB isn't even a _potential_ solution, it's purely a problem, and
> > > since I am not IN THE LEAST interested in having three different
> > > allocators around, SLUB is going to get axed.
> >
> > Not motivated? I have analyzed the problem in detail and when it comes
> > down to it there is not much impact that I can see in real life
> > applications. I have always responded to the regression reported also via
> > TPC-C.
>
> But you are dismissing the hackbench regression, which is not a small
> one. It runs an astonishing 10x slower.
>

BTW, does /proc/slabinfo exist again? I thought we set that as a
requirement for SLUB to be the default and a full replacement for SLAB.