Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760813AbXEJTY1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2007 15:24:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755115AbXEJTYV (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2007 15:24:21 -0400 Received: from netops-testserver-3-out.sgi.com ([192.48.171.28]:53330 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753201AbXEJTYU (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 May 2007 15:24:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 12:24:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: Pekka Enberg cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mundt Subject: Re: [RFC] Slab allocators: Drop support for destructors In-Reply-To: <84144f020705101221y6070ed93he837c59053084fae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <84144f020705101221y6070ed93he837c59053084fae@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 913 Lines: 20 On Thu, 10 May 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote: > > Or do we want to continue support destructors? If so why? > > Well, constructors are on their way out too because they don't seem to > give the performance benefit they were designed for anymore. As for > destructors, they have been pretty useless in Linux for a long time > now and we really don't do much "complex initialization" that requires > undo (releasing resources). Well I am not too sure about removing constructors. Andrew's test seems to show some benefit. That is just one test though. We need more. I do not like constructors either but if performance tests show regressions then we need to keep them. - 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/