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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
