On Mon, Oct 04, 2021 at 01:39:46PM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:

On 10/4/21 08:01, Hyeonggon Yoo wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Oct 03, 2021 at 06:25:29PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:

quoted

I would disagree that SLAB isn't currently maintained, I think it's 
actively maintained.

I thought it was not actively maintained because most of patches were
fixups and cleanups for years and as Vlastimil said, new features are

Fixups and cleanups still count as "actively maintained". The opposite
case would be "nobody uses it because it was broken for years since
commit X and we only noticed now".

Yup, there seems I was differently using meaning of "actively
maintained".

quoted

only added to SLUB. development was focused on SLUB.

quoted

I think the general guidance is that changes for both allocators can still
be merged upstream if they show a significant win (improved performnace, 
maintaining performance while reducing memory footprint, code hygiene, 
etc) and there's no specific policy that we cannot make changes to 
mm/slab.c.

Good.

I see things to improve in SLAB and want to improve it.
I will appreciate if you review them.

It would be great if your motivation started with "I prefer SLAB over
SLUB because X and Y but I need to improve Z", not just a theoretical
concern.

Thank you for advice. by making dumb patches I realized that
, yeah, just a theoretical concern does not help.

I should have more understanding on internals of slab allocators
and on how their characteristics affect performance depending on situation.
and most importantly I should have actual evidence of performance measurement.

I'm sorry and Thank you for thinking about and answering my (somewhat dumb) questions.
But I'm happy that I'm learning a lot from your feedback.

quoted

Thanks,
Hyeonggon