Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Sat, 1 Apr 2023 16:15:13 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        patches@lists.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove all the slab allocators
Message-ID: <ZChKgQ35wLEpcQ0i@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230401094658.11146-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230401094658.11146-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Apr 01, 2023 at 11:46:58AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> As the SLOB removal is on track and the SLAB removal is planned, I have
> realized - why should we stop there and not remove also SLUB? What's a
> slab allocator good for in 2023? The RAM sizes are getting larger and
> the modules cheaper [1]. The object constructor trick was perhaps
> interesting in 1994, but not with contemporary CPUs. So all the slab
> allocator does today is just adding an unnecessary layer of complexity
> over the page allocator.

Acked-by: Poisson D'Avril (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>