* Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote:

quoted text
> On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 08:52:11PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
>  > so even today's upstream kernel, which has 'ancient' SLUB code, SLAB and 
>  > SLUB have essentially the same linecount:
>  > 
>  >   $ wc -l mm/slab.c mm/slub.c
>  >   4478 mm/slab.c
>  >   4125 mm/slub.c
>  > 
>  > (and while linecount != complexity, there is a strong relationship.)
>  > 
>  > With SLAB having 10 years more test coverage and tuning.
> 
> FWIW, the one thing slub does that slab doesn't that I find really 
> nice is being enable to enable debugging at boot time rather than 
> compile time.

yes, but that's largely due to "dont change SLAB because we've got SLUB" 
resistence to SLAB patches. It's a 2 minute hack to implement this for 
SLAB.

quoted text
> We don't get many people running benchmarks against the Fedora kernel, 
> so any scalability differences between slub/slab probably won't reach 
> us until we start shipping betas of the next RHEL based on the same 
> kernel.
> 
> Which leaves my only other gripe.  It broke slabtop.

that's actually a _bad_ ABI regression. Rafael, could you please add 
this to the regressions list?

quoted text
> There's an alternative implementation in Documentation/vm/slabinfo.c 
> (why there not say, util-linux, home of current slabtop?)

the kernel should output /proc/slabinfo data with the same formatting, 
period.

	Ingo
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/