Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>,
       Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
       Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Lin Ming <ming.m.lin@intel.com>,
       "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>,
       Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <1232960840.4863.7.camel@laptop>
References: <20090123154653.GA14517@wotan.suse.de>
	 <1232959706.21504.7.camel@penberg-laptop>  <1232960840.4863.7.camel@laptop>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:10:51 +0100
Message-Id: <1232961051.4863.10.camel@laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1123
Lines: 27

On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 10:07 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-01-26 at 10:48 +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> > Christoph has expressed concerns over latency issues of SLQB, I suppose
> > it would be interesting to hear if it makes any difference to the
> > real-time folks.
> 
> I'll 'soon' take a stab at converting SLQB for -rt. Currently -rt is
> SLAB only.
> 
> Then again, anything that does allocation is per definition not bounded
> and not something we can have on latency critical paths -- so on that
> respect its not interesting.

Before someone pipes up, _yes_ I do know about RT allocators and such.

No we don't do that in-kernel, other than through reservation mechanisms
like mempool -- and I'd rather extend that than try and get page reclaim
bounded.

Yes, I also know about folks doing RT paging, and no, I'm not wanting to
hear about that either ;-)

--
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/