From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762159AbXJDVMQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:12:16 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1761124AbXJDVL4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:11:56 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:58649 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760849AbXJDVLz (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Oct 2007 17:11:55 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2007 14:11:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: Matthew Wilcox cc: David Miller , arjan@infradead.org, willy@linux.intel.com, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, hch@lst.de, mel@skynet.ie, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dgc@sgi.com, jens.axboe@oracle.com Subject: Re: SLUB performance regression vs SLAB In-Reply-To: <20071004205812.GQ12049@parisc-linux.org> Message-ID: References: <20071004161621.GO12049@parisc-linux.org> <20071004105046.7b019fe8@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <20071004.134834.112622292.davem@davemloft.net> <20071004205812.GQ12049@parisc-linux.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > Yet here we stand. Christoph is aggressively trying to get slab removed > from the tree. There is a testcase which shows slub performing worse > than slab. It's not my fault I can't publish it. And just because I > can't publish it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. > > Slab needs to not get removed until slub is as good a performer on this > benchmark. I agree with this .... SLAB will stay until we have worked through all the performance issues.