[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0811270838320.13647@quilx.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:44:41 -0600 (CST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org, Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] fs: Scalability of sockets/pipes allocation/deallocation
on SMP
On Thu, 27 Nov 2008, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> with slub_min_objects=45 :
>
> # cat /sys/kernel/slab/filp/order
> 2
> # time ./socket8
> real 0m1.652s
> user 0m0.694s
> sys 0m12.367s
That may be a good value. How many processor do you have? Look at
calculate_order() in mm/slub.c:
if (!min_objects)
min_objects = 4 * (fls(nr_cpu_ids) + 1);
We couild increase the scaling factor there or start
with a mininum of 20 objects?
Try
min_objects = 20 + 4 * (fls(nr_cpu_ids) + 1);
> I would say slub_min_objects=45 is the optimal value on 32bit arches to
> get acceptable performance on this workload (order=2 for filp kmem_cache)
>
> Note : SLAB here is disastrous, but you already knew that :)
Its good though to have examples where the queue management gets in the
way of performance.
--
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