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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 23:00:43 -0800 From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, matthew@....cx, matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com, chinang.ma@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sharad.c.tripathi@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, andi.kleen@...el.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, harita.chilukuri@...el.com, douglas.w.styner@...el.com, peter.xihong.wang@...el.com, hubert.nueckel@...el.com, chris.mason@...cle.com, srostedt@...hat.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, andrew.vasquez@...gic.com, anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com Subject: Re: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:46:23 +1100 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote: > On Friday 16 January 2009 15:12:10 Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:03:12 +1100 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> > wrote: > > > I would like to see SLQB merged in mainline, made default, and wait for > > > some number releases. Then we take what we know, and try to make an > > > informed decision about the best one to take. I guess that is problematic > > > in that the rest of the kernel is moving underneath us. Do you have > > > another idea? > > > > Nope. If it doesn't work out, we can remove it again I guess. > > OK, I have these numbers to show I'm not completely off my rocker to suggest > we merge SLQB :) Given these results, how about I ask to merge SLQB as default > in linux-next, then if nothing catastrophic happens, merge it upstream in the > next merge window, then a couple of releases after that, given some time to > test and tweak SLQB, then we plan to bite the bullet and emerge with just one > main slab allocator (plus SLOB). That's a plan. > SLQB tends to be the winner here. Can you think of anything with which it will be the loser? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists