From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 11:52:01 -0700 From: "Siddha, Suresh B" Subject: Re: 2.6.22 -mm merge plans: slub Message-ID: <20070502185201.GA12097@linux-os.sc.intel.com> References: <20070430162007.ad46e153.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070501125559.9ab42896.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070501133618.93793687.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Hugh Dickins Cc: Andrew Morton , Christoph Lameter , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: 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, 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