[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1259096004.17871.716.camel@calx>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:53:24 -0600
From: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, cl@...ux-foundation.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 21:46 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:23 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> > My understanding of the current state of play is:
> >
> > SLUB: default allocator
> > SLAB: deep maintenance, will be removed if SLUB ever covers remaining
> > performance regressions
> > SLOB: useful for low-end (but high-volume!) embedded
> > SLQB: sitting in slab.git#for-next for months, has some ground to cover
> >
> > SLQB and SLUB have pretty similar target audiences, so I agree we should
> > eventually have only one of them. But I strongly expect performance
> > results to be mixed, just as they have been comparing SLUB/SLAB.
> > Similarly, SLQB still has of room for tuning left compared to SLUB, as
> > SLUB did compared to SLAB when it first emerged. It might be a while
> > before a clear winner emerges.
>
> And as long as we drag out this madness nothing will change I suspect.
If there's a proposal here, it's not clear what it is.
--
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux
--
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