[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070502114233.30143b0b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:42:33 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans: slub
On Wed, 2 May 2007 11:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 May 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > >
> > > But these are arch specific problems. We could use
> > > ARCH_USES_SLAB_PAGE_STRUCT to disable SLUB on these platforms.
> >
> > As a quick hack, sure. But every ARCH_USES_SLAB_PAGE_STRUCT
> > diminishes the testing SLUB will get. If the idea is that we're
> > going to support both SLAB and SLUB, some arches with one, some
> > with another, some with either, for more than a single release,
> > then I'm back to saying SLUB is being pushed in too early.
> > I can understand people wanting pluggable schedulers,
> > but pluggable slab allocators?
>
> This is a sensitive piece of the kernel as you say and we better allow the
> running of two allocator for some time to make sure that it behaves in all
> load situations. The design is fundamentally different so its performance
> characteristics may diverge significantly and perhaps there will be corner
> cases for each where they do the best job.
eek. We'd need to fix those corner cases then. Our endgame
here really must be rm mm/slab.c.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists