From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:42:33 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans: slub Message-Id: <20070502114233.30143b0b.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: References: <20070430162007.ad46e153.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070501125559.9ab42896.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Hugh Dickins , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 2 May 2007 11:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter 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, 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: email@kvack.org