Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 3 Apr 2008 11:24:00 +0300 | From | "Pekka Enberg" <> | Subject | Re: [rfc] SLQB: YASA |
| |
Hi Nick,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 09:57:25AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > > It's a completely different design of the core allocator algorithms > > really. > > > > It probably looks quite similar because I started with slub.c, but > > really is just the peripheral supporting code and structure. I'm never > > intending to try to go through the pain of incrementally changing SLUB > > into SLQB. If SLQB is found to be a good idea, then it could maybe get > > merged.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote: > And also I guess I don't think Christoph would be very happy about > it :) He loves higher order allocations :) > > The high level choices are pretty clear and I simply think there might > be a better way to do it. I'm not saying it *is* better because I simply > don't know, and there are areas where the tradeoffs I've made means that > in some situations SLQB cannot match SLUB.
So do you disagree with Christoph's statement that we should fix page allocator performance instead of adding queues to SLUB? I also don't think higher order allocations are the answer for regular boxes but I can see why they're useful for HPC people with huge machines.
Pekka
| |