From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> Subject: Re: [RFC V2 SLEB 00/14] The Enhanced(hopefully) Slab Allocator Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:03:49 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <AANLkTimhTfz_mMWNh_r18yapNxSDjA7wRDnFM6L5aIdE@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20100525070734.GC5087@laptop> Hi Nick, On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote: > There is nothing to stop incremental changes or tweaks on top of that > allocator, even to the point of completely changing the allocation > scheme. It is inevitable that with changes in workloads, SMP/NUMA, and > cache/memory costs and hierarchies, the best slab allocation schemes > will change over time. Agreed. On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote: > I think it is more important to have one allocator than trying to get > the absolute most perfect one for everybody. That way changes are > carefully and slowly reviewed and merged, with results to justify the > change. This way everybody is testing the same thing, and bisection will > work. The situation with SLUB is already a nightmare because now each > allocator has half the testing and half the work put into it. I wouldn't say it's a nightmare, but yes, it could be better. From my point of view SLUB is the base of whatever the future will be because the code is much cleaner and simpler than SLAB. That's why I find Christoph's work on SLEB more interesting than SLQB, for example, because it's building on top of something that's mature and stable. That said, are you proposing that even without further improvements to SLUB, we should go ahead and, for example, remove SLAB from Kconfig for v2.6.36 and see if we can just delete the whole thing from, say, v2.6.38? Pekka
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi> To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>, Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>, Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>, Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> Subject: Re: [RFC V2 SLEB 00/14] The Enhanced(hopefully) Slab Allocator Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 11:03:49 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <AANLkTimhTfz_mMWNh_r18yapNxSDjA7wRDnFM6L5aIdE@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20100525070734.GC5087@laptop> Hi Nick, On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote: > There is nothing to stop incremental changes or tweaks on top of that > allocator, even to the point of completely changing the allocation > scheme. It is inevitable that with changes in workloads, SMP/NUMA, and > cache/memory costs and hierarchies, the best slab allocation schemes > will change over time. Agreed. On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 10:07 AM, Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote: > I think it is more important to have one allocator than trying to get > the absolute most perfect one for everybody. That way changes are > carefully and slowly reviewed and merged, with results to justify the > change. This way everybody is testing the same thing, and bisection will > work. The situation with SLUB is already a nightmare because now each > allocator has half the testing and half the work put into it. I wouldn't say it's a nightmare, but yes, it could be better. From my point of view SLUB is the base of whatever the future will be because the code is much cleaner and simpler than SLAB. That's why I find Christoph's work on SLEB more interesting than SLQB, for example, because it's building on top of something that's mature and stable. That said, are you proposing that even without further improvements to SLUB, we should go ahead and, for example, remove SLAB from Kconfig for v2.6.36 and see if we can just delete the whole thing from, say, v2.6.38? Pekka -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-25 8:03 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 89+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2010-05-21 21:14 [RFC V2 SLEB 00/14] The Enhanced(hopefully) Slab Allocator Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 01/14] slab: Introduce a constant for a unspecified node Christoph Lameter 2010-06-07 21:44 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-07 22:30 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-06-08 5:41 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-06-08 6:20 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-08 6:34 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-06-08 23:35 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-09 5:55 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-06-09 5:55 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-06-09 6:20 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-09 6:20 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 02/14] SLUB: Constants need UL Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 03/14] SLUB: Use kmem_cache flags to detect if Slab is in debugging mode Christoph Lameter 2010-06-08 3:57 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 04/14] SLUB: discard_slab_unlock Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 05/14] SLUB: is_kmalloc_cache Christoph Lameter 2010-06-08 8:54 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 06/14] SLUB: Get rid of the kmalloc_node slab Christoph Lameter 2010-06-09 6:14 ` David Rientjes 2010-06-09 16:14 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-06-09 16:26 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-06-10 6:07 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-21 21:14 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 07/14] SLEB: The Enhanced Slab Allocator Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 08/14] SLEB: Resize cpu queue Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 09/14] SLED: Get rid of useless function Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 10/14] SLEB: Remove MAX_OBJS limitation Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 11/14] SLEB: Add per node cache (with a fixed size for now) Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 12/14] SLEB: Make the size of the shared cache configurable Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 13/14] SLEB: Enhanced NUMA support Christoph Lameter 2010-05-21 21:15 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 14/14] SLEB: Allocate off node objects from remote shared caches Christoph Lameter 2010-05-22 8:37 ` [RFC V2 SLEB 00/14] The Enhanced(hopefully) Slab Allocator Pekka Enberg 2010-05-24 7:03 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-24 15:06 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-25 2:06 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 6:55 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 7:07 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 8:03 ` Pekka Enberg [this message] 2010-05-25 8:03 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 8:16 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 8:16 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 9:19 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 9:19 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 9:34 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 9:34 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 9:53 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 9:53 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 10:19 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 10:19 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 10:45 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 10:45 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 11:06 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 11:06 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 15:13 ` Linus Torvalds 2010-05-25 15:13 ` Linus Torvalds 2010-05-25 15:43 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 15:43 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 17:02 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 17:02 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 17:19 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 17:19 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 17:35 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 17:35 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 17:40 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 17:40 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 10:07 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-25 10:07 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-25 10:02 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-25 10:02 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-25 10:47 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 10:47 ` Pekka Enberg 2010-05-25 19:57 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-25 19:57 ` David Rientjes 2010-05-25 14:13 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-25 14:34 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 14:43 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 14:48 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-25 15:11 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 15:28 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-25 15:37 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-27 14:24 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-27 14:37 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-27 15:52 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-27 16:07 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-27 16:57 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-28 8:39 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 14:40 ` Nick Piggin 2010-05-25 14:48 ` Christoph Lameter 2010-05-25 15:12 ` Nick Piggin
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=AANLkTimhTfz_mMWNh_r18yapNxSDjA7wRDnFM6L5aIdE@mail.gmail.com \ --to=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \ --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=cl@linux.com \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=mpm@selenic.com \ --cc=npiggin@suse.de \ --cc=rientjes@google.com \ --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=willy@linux.intel.com \ --cc=yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.