On Wed, 2 May 2007 11:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
