[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1112181447220.1364@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:47:35 -0800 (PST)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
"Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub: prefetch next freelist pointer in slab_alloc()
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Recycling a page is a problem, since freelist link chain is hot on
> cpu(s) which freed objects, and possibly very cold on cpu currently
> owning slab.
>
> Adding a prefetch of cache line containing the pointer to next object in
> slab_alloc() helps a lot in many workloads, in particular on assymetric
> ones (allocations done on one cpu, frees on another cpus). Added cost is
> three machine instructions only.
>
> Examples on my dual socket quad core ht machine (Intel CPU E5540
> @2.53GHz) (16 logical cpus, 2 memory nodes), 64bit kernel.
>
> Before patch :
>
> # perf stat -r 32 hackbench 50 process 4000 >/dev/null
>
> Performance counter stats for 'hackbench 50 process 4000' (32 runs):
>
> 327577,471718 task-clock # 15,821 CPUs utilized ( +- 0,64% )
> 28 866 491 context-switches # 0,088 M/sec ( +- 1,80% )
> 1 506 929 CPU-migrations # 0,005 M/sec ( +- 3,24% )
> 127 151 page-faults # 0,000 M/sec ( +- 0,16% )
> 829 399 813 448 cycles # 2,532 GHz ( +- 0,64% )
> 580 664 691 740 stalled-cycles-frontend # 70,01% frontend cycles idle ( +- 0,71% )
> 197 431 700 448 stalled-cycles-backend # 23,80% backend cycles idle ( +- 1,03% )
> 503 548 648 975 instructions # 0,61 insns per cycle
> # 1,15 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 0,46% )
> 95 780 068 471 branches # 292,389 M/sec ( +- 0,48% )
> 1 426 407 916 branch-misses # 1,49% of all branches ( +- 1,35% )
>
> 20,705679994 seconds time elapsed ( +- 0,64% )
>
> After patch :
>
> # perf stat -r 32 hackbench 50 process 4000 >/dev/null
>
> Performance counter stats for 'hackbench 50 process 4000' (32 runs):
>
> 286236,542804 task-clock # 15,786 CPUs utilized ( +- 1,32% )
> 19 703 372 context-switches # 0,069 M/sec ( +- 4,99% )
> 1 658 249 CPU-migrations # 0,006 M/sec ( +- 6,62% )
> 126 776 page-faults # 0,000 M/sec ( +- 0,12% )
> 724 636 593 213 cycles # 2,532 GHz ( +- 1,32% )
> 499 320 714 837 stalled-cycles-frontend # 68,91% frontend cycles idle ( +- 1,47% )
> 156 555 126 809 stalled-cycles-backend # 21,60% backend cycles idle ( +- 2,22% )
> 463 897 792 661 instructions # 0,64 insns per cycle
> # 1,08 stalled cycles per insn ( +- 0,94% )
> 87 717 352 563 branches # 306,451 M/sec ( +- 0,99% )
> 941 738 280 branch-misses # 1,07% of all branches ( +- 3,35% )
>
> 18,132070670 seconds time elapsed ( +- 1,30% )
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
> CC: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
> CC: Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>
> CC: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
> CC: "Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>
> CC: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
Acked-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
--
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