From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Wilcox Subject: No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finished making slub perform as well Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:58:48 -0600 Message-ID: <20080803015847.GD26461@parisc-linux.org> References: <20080801182324.572058187@lameter.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Pekka Enberg , akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Mel Gorman , andi@firstfloor.org, Rik van Riel To: Christoph Lameter Return-path: Received: from palinux.external.hp.com ([192.25.206.14]:35050 "EHLO mail.parisc-linux.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751516AbYHCB6t (ORCPT ); Sat, 2 Aug 2008 21:58:49 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080801182324.572058187@lameter.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 07:21:01PM -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > - Add a patch that obsoletes SLAB and explains why SLOB does not support > defrag (Either of those could be theoretically equipped to support > slab defrag in some way but it seems that Andrew/Linus want to reduce > the number of slab allocators). Do we have to once again explain that slab still outperforms slub on at least one important benchmark? I hope Nick Piggin finds time to finish tuning slqb; it already outperforms slub. -- Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."