Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator

[Pekka Enberg]

Hi Nick,

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> And... IIRC, the Intel guys did make a stink but it wasn't considered
> so important or worthwhile to fix for some reason? Anyway, the fact is
> that it hadn't been fixed in SLUB. Hmm, I guess it is a significant
> failure of SLUB that it hasn't managed to replace SLAB by this point.

Again, not speaking for Christoph, but *I* do consider the regression
to be important and I do want it to be fixed. I have asked for a test
case to reproduce the regression and/or oprofile reports but have yet
to receive them. I did fix one regression I saw with the fio benchmark
but unfortunately it wasn't the same regression the Intel guys are
hitting. I suppose we're in limbo now because the people who are
affected by the regression can simply turn on CONFIG_SLAB.

In any case, I do agree that the inability to replace SLAB with SLUB
is a failure on the latter. I'm just not totally convinced that it's
because the SLUB code is unfixable ;).

                                Pekka
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/