Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator | From | Matt Mackall <> | Date | Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:06:47 -0600 |
| |
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
| |