Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:23 -0600, Matt Mackall wrote:

> My understanding of the current state of play is:
> 
> SLUB: default allocator
> SLAB: deep maintenance, will be removed if SLUB ever covers remaining
> performance regressions
> SLOB: useful for low-end (but high-volume!) embedded 
> SLQB: sitting in slab.git#for-next for months, has some ground to cover
> 
> SLQB and SLUB have pretty similar target audiences, so I agree we should
> eventually have only one of them. But I strongly expect performance
> results to be mixed, just as they have been comparing SLUB/SLAB.
> Similarly, SLQB still has of room for tuning left compared to SLUB, as
> SLUB did compared to SLAB when it first emerged. It might be a while
> before a clear winner emerges.

And as long as we drag out this madness nothing will change I suspect.

--
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/