linux-kernel - No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finished making slub perform as well

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:58:48 -0600
From:	Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To:	Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>, andi@...stfloor.org,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
Subject: No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finished making slub perform as well

On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 07:21:01PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> - Add a patch that obsoletes SLAB and explains why SLOB does not support
>   defrag (Either of those could be theoretically equipped to support
>   slab defrag in some way but it seems that Andrew/Linus want to reduce
>   the number of slab allocators).

Do we have to once again explain that slab still outperforms slub on at
least one important benchmark?  I hope Nick Piggin finds time to finish
tuning slqb; it already outperforms slub.

-- 
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours.  We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/