Re: [patch 09/10] Remove the SLOB allocator for 2.6.23

[Ingo Molnar]

(added Matt to the Cc: list)

* Christoph Lameter <clameter@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Maintenance of slab allocators becomes a problem as new features for 
> allocators are developed. The SLOB allocator in particular has been 
> lagging behind in many ways in the past:
> 
> - Had no support for SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU for years (but no one 
>   noticed)
> 
> - Still has no support for slab reclaim counters. This may currently 
>   not be necessary if one would restrict the supported configurations 
>   for functionality relying on these. But even that has not been done.
> 
> The only current advantage over SLUB in terms of memory savings is 
> through SLOBs kmalloc layout that is not power of two based like SLAB 
> and SLUB which allows to eliminate some memory waste.
> 
> Through that SLOB has still a slight memory advantage over SLUB of 
> ~350k in for a standard server configuration. It is likely that the 
> savings are is smaller for real embedded configurations that have less 
> functionality.

actually, one real advantage of the SLOB is that it is a minimal, really 
simple allocator. Its text and data size is so small as well.

here's the size comparison:

   text    data     bss     dec     hex filename
  10788     837      16   11641    2d79 mm/slab.o
   6205    4207     124   10536    2928 mm/slub.o
   1640      44       4    1688     698 mm/slob.o

slab/slub have roughly the same footprint, but slob is 10% of that size. 
Would be a waste to throw this away.

A year ago the -rt kernel defaulted to the SLOB for a few releases, and 
barring some initial scalability issues (which were solved in -rt) it 
worked pretty well on generic PCs, so i dont buy the 'it doesnt work' 
argument either.

	Ingo
-
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/