lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: lockdep complaints in slab allocator
From
Date
On Wed, 2009-11-25 at 13:59 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Matt Mackall wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid I have only anecdotal reports from SLOB users, and embedded
> > folks are notorious for lack of feedback, but I only need a few people
> > to tell me they're shipping 100k units/mo to be confident that SLOB is
> > in use in millions of devices.
> >
>
> It's much more popular than I had expected; do you think it would be
> possible to merge slob's core into another allocator or will it require
> seperation forever?

Probably not. It's actually a completely different kind of allocator
than the rest as it doesn't actually use "slabs" at all. It's instead a
slab-like interface on a traditional heap allocator. SLAB/SLUB/SLQB have
much more in common - their biggest differences are about their approach
to scalability/locking issues.

On the upside, SLOB is easily the simplest of the bunch.

--
http://selenic.com : development and support for Mercurial and Linux




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-26 00:13    [W:1.452 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site