Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 14:53 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:
> 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.

Merge SLQB and rm mm/sl[ua]b.c include/linux/sl[ua]b.h for .33-rc1

As long as people have a choice they'll not even try new stuff and if
they do they'll change to the old one as soon as they find an issue, not
even bothering to report, let alone expend effort fixing it.



--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>