lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: lockdep complaints in slab allocator
    From
    Date
    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:0.020 / U:37.560 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site