Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 May 2010 13:45:07 +0300 | Subject | Re: [RFC V2 SLEB 00/14] The Enhanced(hopefully) Slab Allocator | From | Pekka Enberg <> |
| |
Hi Nick,
On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote: >> Like I said, as a maintainer I'm happy to merge patches to modernize >> SLAB > > I think that would be most productive at this point. I will volunteer > to do it.
OK, great!
> As much as I would like to see SLQB be merged :) I think the best > option is to go with SLAB because it is very well tested and very > very well performing.
I would have liked to see SLQB merged as well but it just didn't happen.
> If Christoph or you or I or anyone have genuine improvements to make > to the core algorithms, then the best thing to do will just be do > make incremental changes to SLAB.
I don't see the problem in improving SLUB even if we start modernizing SLAB. Do you? I'm obviously biased towards SLUB still for the reasons I already mentioned. I don't want to be a blocker for progress so if I turn out to be a problem, we should consider changing the maintainer(s). ;-)
> There are several aspects to this. I think the first one will be to > actually modernize the code style, simplify the bootstrap process and > static memory allocations (SLQB goes even further than SLUB in this > regard), and to pull in debug features from SLUB. > > These steps should be made without any changes to core algorithms. > Alien caches can easily be disabled and at present they are really > only a problem for big Altixes where it is a known parameter to tune. > > From that point, I think we should concede that SLUB has not fulfilled > performance promises, and make SLAB the default.
Sure. I don't care which allocator "wins" if we actually are able to get there.
Pekka
| |