Re: [patch 1/3] slob: rework freelist handling

Christoph Lameter
2007-05-22T19:18:58Z

On Tue, 22 May 2007, Matt Mackall wrote:

> On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 09:39:10AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Here are some patches I have been working on for SLOB, which makes
> > it significantly faster, and also using less dynamic memory... at
> > the cost of being slightly larger static footprint and more complex
> > code.
> >
> > Matt was happy for the first 2 to go into -mm (and hasn't seen patch 3 yet).
>
> These all look good, thanks Nick!
>
> Acked-by: Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com>

New SLUB inspired life for SLOB. I hope someone else tests this?

Are there any numbers / tests that give a continued reason for the
existence of SLOB? I.e. show some memory usage on a real system that is
actually lower than SLAB/SLUB? Or are there any confirmed platforms where
SLOB is needed?