[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: lockdep complaints in slab allocator
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:23 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:

> My understanding of the current state of play is:
> SLUB: default allocator
> SLAB: deep maintenance, will be removed if SLUB ever covers remaining
> performance regressions
> SLOB: useful for low-end (but high-volume!) embedded
> SLQB: sitting in slab.git#for-next for months, has some ground to cover
> SLQB and SLUB have pretty similar target audiences, so I agree we should
> eventually have only one of them. But I strongly expect performance
> results to be mixed, just as they have been comparing SLUB/SLAB.
> Similarly, SLQB still has of room for tuning left compared to SLUB, as
> SLUB did compared to SLAB when it first emerged. It might be a while
> before a clear winner emerges.

And as long as we drag out this madness nothing will change I suspect.

 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-24 21:49    [W:0.163 / U:5.264 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site