On Wed, 2 May 2007 11:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2 May 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > >
> > > But these are arch specific problems. We could use
> > > ARCH_USES_SLAB_PAGE_STRUCT to disable SLUB on these platforms.
> >
> > As a quick hack, sure. But every ARCH_USES_SLAB_PAGE_STRUCT
> > diminishes the testing SLUB will get. If the idea is that we're
> > going to support both SLAB and SLUB, some arches with one, some
> > with another, some with either, for more than a single release,
> > then I'm back to saying SLUB is being pushed in too early.
> > I can understand people wanting pluggable schedulers,
> > but pluggable slab allocators?
>
> This is a sensitive piece of the kernel as you say and we better allow the
> running of two allocator for some time to make sure that it behaves in all
> load situations. The design is fundamentally different so its performance
> characteristics may diverge significantly and perhaps there will be corner
> cases for each where they do the best job.
eek. We'd need to fix those corner cases then. Our endgame
here really must be rm mm/slab.c.
-
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]
