On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 05:54:53AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Tue, 1 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote: > > So on balance, given that we _do_ expect slub to have a future, I'm > > inclined to crash ahead with it. The worst that can happen will be a later > > rm mm/slub.c which would be pretty simple to do. > > Okay. And there's been no chorus to echo my concern.
I have been looking into "slub" recently to avoid some of the NUMA alien cache issues that we were encountering on the regular slab. I am having some stability issues with slub on an ia64 NUMA platform and didn't have time to dig further. I am hoping to look into it soon and share the data/findings with Christoph. We also did a quick perf collection on x86_64(atleast didn't hear any stability issues from our team on regular x86_64 SMP), that we will be sharing shortly. > But if Linus' tree is to be better than a warehouse to avoid > awkward merges, I still think we want it to default to on for > all the architectures, and for most if not all -rcs. I will not suggest for default on at this point. thanks, suresh - 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/