Re: lockdep complaints in slab allocator

[Pekka Enberg]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-11-24 at 13:03 -0800, David Rientjes wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> > Merge SLQB and rm mm/sl[ua]b.c include/linux/sl[ua]b.h for .33-rc1
>> >
>>
>> slqb still has a 5-10% performance regression compared to slab for
>> benchmarks such as netperf TCP_RR on machines with high cpu counts,
>> forcing that type of regression isn't acceptable.
>
> Having _4_ slab allocators is equally unacceptable.

The whole idea behind merging SLQB is to see if it can replace SLAB.
If it can't do that in few kernel releases, we're pulling it out. It's
as simple as that.

And if SLQB can replace SLAB, then we start to talk about replacing SLUB too...

                        Pekka
--
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/