[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4900A7C8.9020707@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:35:20 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>, nickpiggin@...oo.com.au,
hugh@...itas.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: SLUB defrag pull request?
Christoph Lameter a écrit :
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>> At alloc time, I remember I added a prefetchw() call in SLAB in
>> __cache_alloc(),
>> this could explain some differences between SLUB and SLAB too, since SLAB
>> gives a hint to processor to warm its cache.
>
> SLUB touches objects by default when allocating. And it does it
> immediately in slab_alloc() in order to retrieve the pointer to the next
> object. So there is no point of hinting there right now.
>
Please note SLUB touches by reading object.
prefetchw() gives a hint to cpu saying this cache line is going to be *modified*, even
if first access is a read. Some architectures can save some bus transactions, acquiring
the cache line in an exclusive way instead of shared one.
> If we go to the pointer arrays then the situation is similar to SLAB
> where the object is not touched by the allocator. Then the hint would be
> useful again.
It is usefull right now for ((SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU | SLAB_POISON) or ctor caches.
Probably not that important because many objects are very large anyway, and a prefetchw()
of the begining of object is partial.
--
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