From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756397Ab0EYPoO (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2010 11:44:14 -0400 Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:35269 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756201Ab0EYPoM (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2010 11:44:12 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 01:43:52 +1000 From: Nick Piggin To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Pekka Enberg , Christoph Lameter , Christoph Lameter , linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML , Andrew Morton , David Rientjes , Zhang Yanmin , Matthew Wilcox , Matt Mackall , Mel Gorman Subject: Re: [RFC V2 SLEB 00/14] The Enhanced(hopefully) Slab Allocator Message-ID: <20100525154352.GB20853@laptop> References: <20100525070734.GC5087@laptop> <20100525081634.GE5087@laptop> <20100525093410.GH5087@laptop> <20100525101924.GJ5087@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 08:13:50AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 May 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > > I would have liked to see SLQB merged as well but it just didn't happen. > > And it's not going to. I'm not going to merge YASA that will stay around > for years, not improve on anything, and will just mean that there are some > bugs that developers don't see because they depend on some subtle > interaction with the sl*b allocator. > > We've got three. That's at least one too many. We're not adding any new > ones until we've gotten rid of at least one old one. No agree and realized that a while back (hence stop pushing SLQB). SLAB is simply a good allocator that is very very hard to beat. The fact that a lot of places are still using SLAB despite the real secondary advantages of SLUB (cleaner code, better debugging support) indicate to me that we should go back and start from there. What is sad is all this duplicate (and unsynchronized and not always complete) work implementing things in both the allocators[*] and split testing base. As far as I can see, there was never a good reason to replace SLAB rather than clean up its code and make incremental improvements.