From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:57:25 -0700 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans: slub Message-Id: <20070502115725.683ac702.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 , haveblue@ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 2 May 2007 11:39:20 -0700 (PDT) Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 2 May 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote: > > > I'm astonished and impressed, both with Kconfig and your use of it: > > Thanks! > > > I'd much rather be testing a quicklist patch: > > I'd better give that a try. > > Great. But I certainly do not mind people use SLAB. I do not think that > one approach should be there for all. Choice is the way to have multiple > allocators compete. One reason that SLAB is so crusty is because it was > the only solution for so long. > noooo, we don't want competing slab allocators, please. We should get slub working well on all architectures then remove slab completely. Having to maintain both slab.c and slub.c would be awful. -- 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