From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail202.messagelabs.com (mail202.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.227]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E1AB620202 for ; Tue, 25 May 2010 11:31:26 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 10:28:11 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [RFC V2 SLEB 00/14] The Enhanced(hopefully) Slab Allocator In-Reply-To: <20100525151129.GS5087@laptop> Message-ID: References: <20100521211452.659982351@quilx.com> <20100524070309.GU2516@laptop> <20100525020629.GA5087@laptop> <20100525143409.GP5087@laptop> <20100525151129.GS5087@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Nick Piggin Cc: Christoph Lameter , Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 26 May 2010, Nick Piggin wrote: > You do not understand. There is nothing *preventing* other designs of > allocators from using higher order allocations. The problem is that > SLUB is *forced* to use them due to it's limited queueing capabilities. SLUBs use of higher order allocation is *optional*. The limited queuing is advantageous within the framework of SLUB because NUMA locality checks are simplified and locking is localized to a single page increasing concurrency. > You keep spinning this as a good thing for SLUB design when it is not. It is a good design decision. You have an irrational fear of higher order allocations. > > The reason that the alien caches made it into SLAB were performance > > numbers that showed that the design "must" be this way. I prefer a clear > > maintainable design over some numbers (that invariably show the bias of > > the tester for certain loads). > > I don't really agree. There are a number of other possible ways to > improve it, including fewer remote freeing queues. You disagree with the history of the allocator? > How is it possibly better to instead start from the known suboptimal > code and make changes to it? What exactly is your concern with > making incremental changes to SLAB? I am not sure why you want me to repeat what I already said. Guess we should stop this conversation since it is deteriorating. -- 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