From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [rfc] SLQB: YASA Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 10:13:38 +0200 Message-ID: <20080403081338.GA18337@wotan.suse.de> References: <20080403072550.GC25932@wotan.suse.de> <84144f020804030045p44456894lfc006dcdeab6f67c@mail.gmail.com> <20080403075725.GA7514@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080403075725.GA7514@wotan.suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Pekka Enberg Cc: Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Lameter List-Id: linux-mm.kvack.org On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 09:57:25AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 10:45:44AM +0300, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:25 AM, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > I'm not quite sure what to do with this. If anybody could test or comment, > > > I guess that would be a good start :) > > > > Why is this not a patch set against SLUB? > > It's a completely different design of the core allocator algorithms > really. > > It probably looks quite similar because I started with slub.c, but > really is just the peripheral supporting code and structure. I'm never > intending to try to go through the pain of incrementally changing SLUB > into SLQB. If SLQB is found to be a good idea, then it could maybe get > merged. And also I guess I don't think Christoph would be very happy about it :) He loves higher order allocations :) The high level choices are pretty clear and I simply think there might be a better way to do it. I'm not saying it *is* better because I simply don't know, and there are areas where the tradeoffs I've made means that in some situations SLQB cannot match SLUB.