On Wed, 2 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > 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.
First we need to discover them and I doubt that mm covers much more than
development loads. I hope we can get to a point where we have SLUB be
the primarily allocator soon but I would expect various performance issues
to show up.
On the other hand: I am pretty sure that SLUB can replace SLOB completely
given SLOBs limitations and SLUBs more efficient use of space. SLOB needs
8 bytes of overhead. SLUB needs none. We may just have to #ifdef out the
debugging support to make the code be of similar size to SLOB too. SLOB is
a general problem because its features are not compatible to SLAB. F.e. it
does not support DESTROY_BY_RCU and does not do reclaim the right way etc
etc. SLUB may turn out to be the ideal embedded slab allocator.
-
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]
