On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 05:54:53AM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > So on balance, given that we _do_ expect slub to have a future, I'm
> > inclined to crash ahead with it. The worst that can happen will be a later
> > rm mm/slub.c which would be pretty simple to do.
>
> Okay. And there's been no chorus to echo my concern.
I have been looking into "slub" recently to avoid some of the NUMA alien
cache issues that we were encountering on the regular slab.
I am having some stability issues with slub on an ia64 NUMA platform and
didn't have time to dig further. I am hoping to look into it soon
and share the data/findings with Christoph.
We also did a quick perf collection on x86_64(atleast didn't hear
any stability issues from our team on regular x86_64 SMP), that we will be
sharing shortly.
> But if Linus' tree is to be better than a warehouse to avoid
> awkward merges, I still think we want it to default to on for
> all the architectures, and for most if not all -rcs.
I will not suggest for default on at this point.
thanks,
suresh
-
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]
