[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705021144110.1119@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:53:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
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, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 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.
First we need to discover them and I doubt that mm covers much more than
development loads. I hope we can get to a point where we have SLUB be
the primarily allocator soon but I would expect various performance issues
to show up.
On the other hand: I am pretty sure that SLUB can replace SLOB completely
given SLOBs limitations and SLUBs more efficient use of space. SLOB needs
8 bytes of overhead. SLUB needs none. We may just have to #ifdef out the
debugging support to make the code be of similar size to SLOB too. SLOB is
a general problem because its features are not compatible to SLAB. F.e. it
does not support DESTROY_BY_RCU and does not do reclaim the right way etc
etc. SLUB may turn out to be the ideal embedded slab allocator.
-
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