Re: [PATCH net-next] net: allocate skbs on local node

[Christoph Lameter]

On Tue, 12 Oct 2010, David Rientjes wrote:

> > Take the unified as a SLAB cleanup instead? Then at least we have
> > a large common code base and just differentiate through the locking
> > mechanism?
> >
>
> Will you be adding the extensive slub debugging to slab then?  It would be
> a shame to lose it because one allocator is chosen over another for
> performance reasons and then we need to recompile to debug issues as they
> arise.

Well basically we would copy SLUB to SLAB apply unification patches to
SLAB instead of SLUBB. We first have to make sure that the unified patches
have the same performance as SLAB.

It maybe much better to isolate the debug features and general bootstrap
from the particulars of the allocation strategy of either SLUB or SLAB.
That way a common code base exists and it would be easier to add different
allocation strategies.

Basically have slab.c with the basic functions and then slab_queueing.c
and slab_noqueue.c for SLAB/SLUB with the particulars of the allocation
strategy?


--
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/