From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:40:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: SLUB defrag pull request? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1223883004.31587.15.camel@penberg-laptop> <48FE6306.6020806@linux-foundation.org> <84144f020810221348j536f0d84vca039ff32676e2cc@mail.gmail.com> <1224745831.25814.21.camel@penberg-laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Miklos Szeredi Cc: penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org List-ID: On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > I think the _real_ problem is that instead of fancy features like this > defragmenter, SLUB should first concentrate on getting the code solid > enough to replace the other allocators. Solid? What is not solid? The SLUB design was made in part because of the defrag problems that were not easy to solve with SLAB. The ability to lock down a slab allows stabilizing objects. We discussed solutions to the fragmentation problem for years and did not get anywhere with SLAB. -- 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