On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 10:06:08AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Mon, 24 May 2010, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Well I'm glad you've conceded that queues are useful for high > > performance computing, and that higher order allocations are not > > a free and unlimited resource. > > Ahem. I have never made any such claim and would never make them. And > "conceding" something ??? Well, you were quite vocal about the subject. > The "unqueueing" was the result of excessive queue handling in SLAB due and > the higher order allocations are a natural move in HPC to gain performance. This is the kind of handwavings that need to be put into a testable form. I repeatedly asked you for examples of where the jitter is excessive or where the TLB improvements help, but you never provided any testable case. I'm not saying they don't exist, but we have to be reational about this. > > I hope we can move forward now with some objective, testable > > comparisons and criteria for selecting one main slab allocator. > > If can find criteria that are universally agreed upon then yes but that is > doubtful. I think we can agree that perfect is the enemy of good, and that no allocator will do the perfect thing for everybody. I think we have to come up with a way to a single allocator. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>