Re: SLUB defrag pull request?

From: Miklos Szeredi
Date: Thu Oct 23 2008 - 04:40:01 EST

On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> ïOn Thu, 2008-10-23 at 00:10 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:ï
> > Actually, no: looking at the slub code it already makes sure that
> > objects are neither poisoned, nor touched in any way _if_ there is a
> > constructor for the object. And for good reason too, otherwise a
> > reused object would contain rubbish after a second allocation.
> There's no inherent reason why we cannot poison slab caches with a
> constructor.

Right, it just needs to call the constructor for every allocation.

> > Come on guys, you should be the experts in this thing!
> Yeah, I know. Yet you're stuck with us. That's sad.

No, I was a bit rude, sorry.

I think the _real_ problem is that instead of fancy features like this
defragmenter, SLUB should first concentrate on getting the code solid
enough to replace the other allocators.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at