From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754282AbZGJJT2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:19:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753977AbZGJJTL (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:19:11 -0400 Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.9.1]:33550 "EHLO mail.cs.helsinki.fi" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753426AbZGJJTK (ORCPT ); Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:19:10 -0400 Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Check write to slab memory which freed already using mudflap From: Pekka Enberg To: David Rientjes Cc: Ingo Molnar , Janboe Ye , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vegard.nossum@gmail.com, graydon@redhat.com, fche@redhat.com, Nick Piggin , cl@linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: References: <1247156020.27671.40.camel@debian-nb> <84144f020907090944u51f60cbsc0a4ec2c2cbdcc8c@mail.gmail.com> <20090710084745.GA26752@elte.hu> Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:19:08 +0300 Message-Id: <1247217548.771.10.camel@penberg-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Evolution 2.24.3 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi David, On Fri, 10 Jul 2009, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > SLAB is (slowly) going away so you might want to port this to SLUB > > > as well so we can merge both. > > > > and SLQB which will replace both? :-/ On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 02:04 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > I'm not sure what the status of slqb is, although I would have expected it > to have been pushed for inclusion in 2.6.31 as a slab allocator > alternative. Nick, any forecast for inclusion? 2.6.32 most likely. Nick has fixed a bunch of problems but there's still one ppc boot time bug that's turning out to be hard to find. On Fri, 2009-07-10 at 02:04 -0700, David Rientjes wrote: > SLUB has a pretty noticeable performance degradation on benchmarks such as > netperf TCP_RR with high numbers of threads (see my post about it: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123839191416472). CONFIG_SLAB is the > optimal configuration for workloads that share similiar slab thrashing > patterns (which my patchset dealt with in an indirect way and yet still > didn't match slab's performance). I haven't yet seen data that suggests > anything other than CONFIG_SLAB has parity with such a benchmark. As I said before, I'm interesting in getting those patches merged. I think Christoph raised some issues that need to be take care of before we can do that, no? Pekka