From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: allocate skbs on local node Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:49:53 +0200 Message-ID: <1286869793.2732.24.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <1286838210.30423.128.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1286839363.30423.130.camel@edumazet-laptop> <1286859925.30423.184.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101011230322.f0f6dd47.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <1286866699.30423.234.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101012002435.f51f2c0e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: David Miller , netdev , Michael Chan , Eilon Greenstein , Christoph Hellwig , Christoph Lameter To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Received: from mail-wy0-f174.google.com ([74.125.82.174]:45372 "EHLO mail-wy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756621Ab0JLH4i (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Oct 2010 03:56:38 -0400 Received: by wye20 with SMTP id 20so1148429wye.19 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 00:56:37 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20101012002435.f51f2c0e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Le mardi 12 octobre 2010 =C3=A0 00:24 -0700, Andrew Morton a =C3=A9crit= : > I'd love to forget it, but it's faster for some things (I forget > which). Which is why it's still around. Yes, two years ago it was true on pathological/obscure cases. Every time I did the comparison, SLUB won. You asked me, I did yet another test this morning, and 40% is pretty serious, I believe. >=20 > And the ghastly thing about this is that you're forced to care about = it > too because some people are, apparently, still using it. >=20 Yes, some people (in my company) still use linux 2.6.9 32bit on HP G6/G= 7 machines, I know... I am not saying we should not care, but for any serious network workloa= d on NUMA arches, SLUB is the best, and seeing Christoph recent work, it might even get better. BTW, I believe all modern distros ship SLUB, dont they ?