[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2011 13:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, hughd@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > The netperf benchmark isn't representative of a heavy slab consuming
> > workload, I routinely run jobs on these machines that use 20 times the
> > amount of slab. From what I saw in the earlier posting of the per-cpu
> > partial list patch, the min_partial value is set to half of what it was
> > previously as a per-node partial list. Since these are 16-core, 4 node
> > systems, that would mean that after a kmem_cache_shrink() on a cache that
> > leaves empty slab on the partial lists that we've doubled the memory for
> > slub's partial lists systemwide.
>
> Cutting down the potential number of empty slabs that we might possible
> keep around because we have no partial slabs per node increases memory
> usage?
>
You halved the number of min_partial, but there are 16 partial lists on
these machines because they are per-cpu instead of 4 partial lists when
they were per-node.
--
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