[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080403081338.GA18337@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:13:38 +0200
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Subject: Re: [rfc] SLQB: YASA
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 09:57:25AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:45:44AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
> > > I'm not quite sure what to do with this. If anybody could test or comment,
> > > I guess that would be a good start :)
> >
> > Why is this not a patch set against SLUB?
>
> It's a completely different design of the core allocator algorithms
> really.
>
> It probably looks quite similar because I started with slub.c, but
> really is just the peripheral supporting code and structure. I'm never
> intending to try to go through the pain of incrementally changing SLUB
> into SLQB. If SLQB is found to be a good idea, then it could maybe get
> merged.
And also I guess I don't think Christoph would be very happy about
it :) He loves higher order allocations :)
The high level choices are pretty clear and I simply think there might
be a better way to do it. I'm not saying it *is* better because I simply
don't know, and there are areas where the tradeoffs I've made means that
in some situations SLQB cannot match SLUB.
--
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