On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote: > On 2/22/07, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is a new slab allocator which was motivated by the complexity of the > > existing code in mm/slab.c. It attempts to address a variety of concerns > > with the existing implementation. > > So do you want to add a new allocator or replace slab?
Add. The performance and quality is not comparable to SLAB at this point. > On 2/22/07, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > B. Storage overhead of object queues > > Does this make sense for non-NUMA too? If not, can we disable the > queues for NUMA in current slab? Given the locking scheme in the current slab you cannot do that. Otherwise there will be a single lock taken for every operation limiting performace > On 2/22/07, Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > C. SLAB metadata overhead > > Can be done for the current slab code too, no? The per slab metadata of the SLAB does not fit into the page_struct. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
