On Wed, 26 May 2010, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > 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? > > I don't agree with you saying that it "must" be that way. There are > other ways to improve things there. People told me that it "must" be this way. Could not convince them otherwise at the time. I never wanted it to be that way and have been looking for other ways ever since. SLUB is a result of trying something different. > then we can go ahead and throw out SLUB and make incremental > improvements from there instead. I am just amazed at the tosses and turns by you. Didnt you write SLQB on the basis of SLUB? And then it was abandoned? If you really believe ths and want to get this done then please invest some time in SLAB to get it cleaned up. I have some doubt that you are aware of the difficulties that you will encounter. -- 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>