[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0810231145430.19239@quilx.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:47:48 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
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?
On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> 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.
Most architectures actually can do that. Its probably worth to run some
tests with that. Conversion of a cacheline from shared to exclusive can
cost something.
>> 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.
Correct.
> Probably not that important because many objects are very large anyway, and a
> prefetchw()
> of the begining of object is partial.
Right.
--
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