Re: [PATCH RT 00/02] SLOB optimizations

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:

> > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=113510997009883&w=2
> > 
> > Quite a long list of unsupported features. These academic papers
> > usually only focus on one thing. The SLAB allocator has to work
> > for a variety of situations though.
> > 
> > It would help to explain what ultimately will be better in the new slab 
> > allocator. The complexity could be taken care of by reorganizing the code.
> 
> Honestly, what I would like is a simpler solution, whether we go with 
> a new approach or reorganize the current slab.  I need to get -rt 
> working, and the code in slab is pulling my resources more than they 
> can extend. I'm capable to convert slab today as it is for RT but it 
> will probably take longer than I can afford.

please, lets let the -rt tree out of the equation. The SLAB code is fine 
on upstream, and it was a pure practical maintainance decision to go for 
SLOB in the -rt tree. Yes, the SLAB code is complex, but i could hardly 
list any complexity in it tht isnt justified with a performance 
argument. _Maybe_ the SLAB code could be further cleaned up, maybe it 
could even be replaced, but we'd have to see the patches first. In any 
case, the -rt tree is not an argument that matters.

	Ingo