From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D191F620202 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 11:12:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 01:12:32 +1000 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [RFC V2 SLEB 00/14] The Enhanced(hopefully) Slab Allocator Message-ID: <20100525151232.GT5087@laptop> References: <20100521211452.659982351@quilx.com> <20100524070309.GU2516@laptop> <20100525020629.GA5087@laptop> <20100525144037.GQ5087@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 09:48:56AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 26 May 2010, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > And by the way I disagreed completely that this is a problem. And you > > never demonstrated that it is a problem. > > > > It's totally unproductive to say things like it implements its own > > "NUMAness" aside from the page allocator. I can say SLUB implements its > > own "numaness" because it is checking for objects matching NUMA > > requirements too. > > SLAB implement numa policies etc in the SLAB logic. It has its own rotor > now. We all know. I am saying it is unproductive because you just claim that it is some fundamental problem without why it is a problem. -- 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