[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070518073223.GA23998@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 09:32:23 +0200
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] increase struct page size?!
On Fri, May 18, 2007 at 12:19:05AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 18 May 2007 06:08:54 +0200 Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de> wrote:
>
> > Many batch operations on struct page are completely random,
>
> But they shouldn't be: we should aim to place physically contiguous pages
> into logically contiguous pagecache slots, for all the reasons we
> discussed.
For big IO batch operations, pagecache would be more likely to be
physically contiguous, as would LRU, I suppose.
I'm more thinking of operations where things get reclaimed over time,
touched or dirtied in slightly different orderings, interleaved with
other allocations, etc.
> If/when that happens, there will be a *lot* of locality of reference
> against the pageframes in a lot of important codepaths.
And when it doesn't happen, we eat 75% more cache misses. And for that
matter we eat 75% more cache misses for non-batch operations like
allocating or freeing a page by slab, for example.
-
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