Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator | From | Matt Mackall <> | Date | Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:53:24 -0600 |
| |
On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 21:46 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > 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.
If there's a proposal here, it's not clear what it is.
-- http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux
| |