[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19f34abd0807160733q2594bd9fk268703d2aedc8254@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:33:53 +0200
From: "Vegard Nossum" <vegard.nossum@...il.com>
To: "Christoph Lameter" <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Richard Kennedy" <richard@....demon.co.uk>,
penberg@...helsinki.fi, mpm@...enic.com,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Mel Gorman" <mel@....ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] slub: increasing order reduces memory usage of some key caches
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Christoph Lameter
<cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> Richard Kennedy wrote:
>
>> before
>> dentry 82136 82137 208 19 1 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 4323 4323 0
>> after
>> dentry 79482 79482 208 39 2 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 2038 2038 0
>
> 19 objects with an order 1 alloc and 208 byte size? Urgh. 8192/208 = 39 and not 19.
>
> Kmemcheck or something else active? We seem to be loosing 50% of our memory.
Hm, I don't think so? I thought that those 1 and 2 were not orders,
but in fact the number of pages. Which seems correct, since now you
have 4096 / 208 = 19 :-)
(His patch bumps order from 0 to 1, so the number of pages were bumped
from 1 to 2.)
Or..?
Vegard
--
"The animistic metaphor of the bug that maliciously sneaked in while
the programmer was not looking is intellectually dishonest as it
disguises that the error is the programmer's own creation."
-- E. W. Dijkstra, EWD1036
--
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