* Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=113510997009883&w=2
> >
> > Quite a long list of unsupported features. These academic papers
> > usually only focus on one thing. The SLAB allocator has to work
> > for a variety of situations though.
> >
> > It would help to explain what ultimately will be better in the new slab
> > allocator. The complexity could be taken care of by reorganizing the code.
>
> Honestly, what I would like is a simpler solution, whether we go with
> a new approach or reorganize the current slab. I need to get -rt
> working, and the code in slab is pulling my resources more than they
> can extend. I'm capable to convert slab today as it is for RT but it
> will probably take longer than I can afford.
please, lets let the -rt tree out of the equation. The SLAB code is fine
on upstream, and it was a pure practical maintainance decision to go for
SLOB in the -rt tree. Yes, the SLAB code is complex, but i could hardly
list any complexity in it tht isnt justified with a performance
argument. _Maybe_ the SLAB code could be further cleaned up, maybe it
could even be replaced, but we'd have to see the patches first. In any
case, the -rt tree is not an argument that matters.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
