[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090115162735.99277cc9.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:27:35 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc: 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 Thu, 15 Jan 2009 18:24:36 +1100
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> wrote:
> Given that SLAB and SLUB are fairly mature, I wonder what you'd think of
> taking SLQB into -mm and making it the default there for a while, to see
> if anybody reports a problem?
Nobody would test it in interesting ways.
We'd get more testing in linux-next, but still not enough, and not of
the right type.
It would be better to just make the desision, merge it and forge ahead.
Me, I'd be 100% behind the idea if it had a credible prospect of a net
reduction in the number of slab allocator implementations.
I guess the naming convention will limit us to 26 of them. Fortunate
indeed that the kernel isn't written in cyrillic!
--
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