[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1112061259210.28251@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 13:06:07 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: "Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>
cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"penberg@...nel.org" <penberg@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] slub: set a criteria for slub node partial adding
On Mon, 5 Dec 2011, Alex,Shi wrote:
> Previous testing depends on 3.2-rc1, that show hackbench performance has
> no clear change, and netperf get some benefit. But seems after
> irqsafe_cpu_cmpxchg patch, the result has some change. I am collecting
> these results.
>
netperf will also degrade with this change on some machines, there's no
clear heuristic that can be used to benefit all workloads when deciding
where to add a partial slab into the list. Cache hotness is great but
your patch doesn't address situations where frees happen to a partial slab
such that they may be entirely free (or at least below your 1:4 inuse to
nr_objs threshold) at the time you want to deactivate the cpu slab.
I had a patchset that iterated the partial list and found the "most free"
partial slab (and terminated prematurely if a threshold had been reached,
much like yours) and selected that one, and it helped netperf 2-3% in my
testing. So I disagree with determining where to add a partial slab to
the list at the time of free because it doesn't infer its state at the
time of cpu slab deactivation.
--
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