On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:02:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Guys, look at this the other way. Suppose we only had slub, and someone
> came along and said "here's a whole new allocator which saves 4.5k of
> text", would we merge it on that basis? Hell no, it's not worth it. What
> we might do is to get motivated to see if we can make slub less porky under
> appropriate config settings.
Well I think we would obviously throw out SLAB and SLUB if they
weren't somewhat faster than SLOB. They're much more problematic and
one of the big features that Christoph's pushing is a fix for a
problem that SLOB simply doesn't have: huge numbers of SLAB/SLUB pages
being held down by small numbers of objects.
> Let's not get sentimental about these things: in general, if there's any
> reasonable way in which we can rid ourselves of any code at all, we should
> do so, no?
I keep suggesting a Voyager Replacement Fund, but James isn't
interested.
But seriously, I don't think it should be at all surprising that the
allocator that's most appropriate for machines with < 32MB of RAM is
different than the one for machines with > 1TB of RAM.
The maintenance overhead of SLOB is fairly minimal. The biggest
outstanding SLOB problem is nommu's rather broken memory size
reporting.
--
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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]
