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

[Matt Mackall]

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:02:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Guys, look at this the other way.  Suppose we only had slub, and someone
> came along and said "here's a whole new allocator which saves 4.5k of
> text", would we merge it on that basis?  Hell no, it's not worth it.  What
> we might do is to get motivated to see if we can make slub less porky under
> appropriate config settings.

Well I think we would obviously throw out SLAB and SLUB if they
weren't somewhat faster than SLOB. They're much more problematic and
one of the big features that Christoph's pushing is a fix for a
problem that SLOB simply doesn't have: huge numbers of SLAB/SLUB pages
being held down by small numbers of objects. 

> Let's not get sentimental about these things: in general, if there's any
> reasonable way in which we can rid ourselves of any code at all, we should
> do so, no?

I keep suggesting a Voyager Replacement Fund, but James isn't
interested.

But seriously, I don't think it should be at all surprising that the
allocator that's most appropriate for machines with < 32MB of RAM is
different than the one for machines with > 1TB of RAM.

The maintenance overhead of SLOB is fairly minimal. The biggest
outstanding SLOB problem is nommu's rather broken memory size
reporting.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
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/