Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

[Matt Mackall]

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


--
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/