On Wed, 26 May 2010, Nick Piggin wrote: > You do not understand. There is nothing *preventing* other designs of > allocators from using higher order allocations. The problem is that > SLUB is *forced* to use them due to it's limited queueing capabilities. SLUBs use of higher order allocation is *optional*. The limited queuing is advantageous within the framework of SLUB because NUMA locality checks are simplified and locking is localized to a single page increasing concurrency. > You keep spinning this as a good thing for SLUB design when it is not. It is a good design decision. You have an irrational fear of higher order allocations. > > The reason that the alien caches made it into SLAB were performance > > numbers that showed that the design "must" be this way. I prefer a clear > > maintainable design over some numbers (that invariably show the bias of > > the tester for certain loads). > > I don't really agree. There are a number of other possible ways to > improve it, including fewer remote freeing queues. You disagree with the history of the allocator? > How is it possibly better to instead start from the known suboptimal > code and make changes to it? What exactly is your concern with > making incremental changes to SLAB? I am not sure why you want me to repeat what I already said. Guess we should stop this conversation since it is deteriorating. -- 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>