On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 08:13:50AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 May 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > > > I would have liked to see SLQB merged as well but it just didn't happen. > > And it's not going to. I'm not going to merge YASA that will stay around > for years, not improve on anything, and will just mean that there are some > bugs that developers don't see because they depend on some subtle > interaction with the sl*b allocator. > > We've got three. That's at least one too many. We're not adding any new > ones until we've gotten rid of at least one old one. No agree and realized that a while back (hence stop pushing SLQB). SLAB is simply a good allocator that is very very hard to beat. The fact that a lot of places are still using SLAB despite the real secondary advantages of SLUB (cleaner code, better debugging support) indicate to me that we should go back and start from there. What is sad is all this duplicate (and unsynchronized and not always complete) work implementing things in both the allocators[*] and split testing base. As far as I can see, there was never a good reason to replace SLAB rather than clean up its code and make incremental improvements. -- 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>