Re: SLUB defrag pull request?

[Miklos Szeredi]

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.

Miklos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/