From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Pekka Enberg" Subject: Re: [rfc] SLQB: YASA Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:24:00 +0300 Message-ID: <84144f020804030124m4cc0bc1en2e11218f1f8bdc55@mail.gmail.com> References: <20080403072550.GC25932@wotan.suse.de> <84144f020804030045p44456894lfc006dcdeab6f67c@mail.gmail.com> <20080403075725.GA7514@wotan.suse.de> <20080403081338.GA18337@wotan.suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080403081338.GA18337@wotan.suse.de> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Christoph Lameter List-Id: linux-mm.kvack.org Hi Nick, On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 09:57:25AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > 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. On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Nick Piggin wrote: > 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. So do you disagree with Christoph's statement that we should fix page allocator performance instead of adding queues to SLUB? I also don't think higher order allocations are the answer for regular boxes but I can see why they're useful for HPC people with huge machines. Pekka