[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <44E75E56.60905@colorfullife.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2006 20:54:14 +0200
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@....de>, mpm@...enic.com,
Marcelo Tosatti <marcelo@...ck.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Dave Chinner <dgc@....com>
Subject: Re: [MODSLAB 3/7] A Kmalloc subsystem
Christoph Lameter wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
>
>>What about:
>>
>>if (unlikely(addr & (~(PAGE_SIZE-1))))
>> slabp=virt_to_page(addr)->pagefield;
>>else
>> slabp=addr & (~(PAGE_SIZE-1));
>>
>>
>
>Well this would not be working with the simple slab design that puts the
>first element at the page border to simplify alignment.
>
>And as we have just seen virt to page is mostly an address
>calculation in many configurations. I doubt that there would be a great
>advantage. Todays processors biggest cause for latencies are
>cacheline misses..
>
It involves table walking on discontigmem archs. "slabp=addr &
(~(PAGE_SIZE-1));" means no pointer chasing, and the access touches the
same page, i.e. definitively no TLB miss.
> Some arithmetic with addresses does not seem to
>be that important. Misaligning data in order to not put objects on such
>boundaries could be an issue.
>
> > Modify the kmalloc caches slightly and use non-power-of-2 cache sizes. Move
>
>
>>the kmalloc(PAGE_SIZE) users to gfp.
>>
>>
>
>Power of 2 cache sizes make the object align neatly to cacheline
>boundaries and make them fit tightly into a page.
>
>
IMHO not really an issue. 2kb-cache_line_size() also aligns perfectly.
--
Manfred
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists