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;
From:   David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To:     'Vlastimil Babka' <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "patches@lists.linux.dev" <patches@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] mm: remove all the slab allocators
Thread-Topic: [PATCH] mm: remove all the slab allocators
Thread-Index: AQHZZH7yC1nc5Yxd6ES5VUUdsjQvja8WxpGg
Date:   Sat, 1 Apr 2023 18:33:28 +0000
Message-ID: <eea7e17ab4264b7ca7ccea0ab725120f@AcuMS.aculab.com>
References: <20230401094658.11146-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20230401094658.11146-1-vbabka@suse.cz>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

From: Vlastimil Babka
> Sent: 32 March 2023 10:47
> 
> 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.

Why stop there?
Remove kmalloc() completely.
With cheap memory isn't unreasonable to go back to compile-time
settable fixed size arrays for all items.
Should make 'use after free' much easier to track down.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)