On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 10:50 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2007 10:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
> Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > Yeah the fastpath vs. slow path is not the issue as Siddha and I
> > concluded earlier. Seems that we are mainly seeing cacheline bouncing
> > due to two cpus accessing meta data in the same page struct. The
> > patches in MM that are scheduled to be merged for .24 address 
> 
> 
> Ok every time something says anything not 100% positive about SLUB you
> come back with "but it's fixed in the next patch set"... *every time*.
> 
> To be honest, to me that sounds that SLUB isn't ready for prime time
> yet, or at least not ready to be the only one in town...
> 
> The day that the answer is "the kernel.org slub is fixing all the
> issues" is when it's ready..

Arjan, to be honest, there has been some confusion on _what_ code has
been tested with what results. And with Christoph not able to reproduce
these results locally, it is very hard for him to fix it proper.



-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/