On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:02:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > Guys, look at this the other way. Suppose we only had slub, and someone > came along and said "here's a whole new allocator which saves 4.5k of > text", would we merge it on that basis? Hell no, it's not worth it. What > we might do is to get motivated to see if we can make slub less porky under > appropriate config settings.
Well I think we would obviously throw out SLAB and SLUB if they weren't somewhat faster than SLOB. They're much more problematic and one of the big features that Christoph's pushing is a fix for a problem that SLOB simply doesn't have: huge numbers of SLAB/SLUB pages being held down by small numbers of objects. > Let's not get sentimental about these things: in general, if there's any > reasonable way in which we can rid ourselves of any code at all, we should > do so, no? I keep suggesting a Voyager Replacement Fund, but James isn't interested. But seriously, I don't think it should be at all surprising that the allocator that's most appropriate for machines with < 32MB of RAM is different than the one for machines with > 1TB of RAM. The maintenance overhead of SLOB is fairly minimal. The biggest outstanding SLOB problem is nommu's rather broken memory size reporting. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time. - 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/
