Hi Seth, On 09/15/2011 12:31 PM, Seth Jennings wrote: > > So this is how I see things... > > Right now xvmalloc is broken for zcache's application because > of its huge fragmentation for half the valid allocation sizes > (> PAGE_SIZE/2). > > My xcfmalloc patches are _a_ solution that is ready now. Sure, > it doesn't so compaction yet, and it has some metadata overhead. > So it's not "ideal" (if there is such I thing). But it does fix > the brokenness of xvmalloc for zcache's application. > > So I see two ways going forward: > > 1) We review and integrate xcfmalloc now. Then, when you are > done with your allocator, we can run them side by side and see > which is better by numbers. If yours is better, you'll get no > argument from me and we can replace xcfmalloc with yours. > > 2) We can agree on a date (sooner rather than later) by which your > allocator will be completed. At that time we can compare them and > integrate the best one by the numbers. > I think replacing allocator every few weeks isn't a good idea. So, I guess better would be to let me work for about 2 weeks and try the slab based approach. If nothing works out in this time, then maybe xcfmalloc can be integrated after further testing. Thanks, Nitin -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>