Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

[Matt Mackall]

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


--
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/