[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1203211319100.25567@router.home>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:20:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Lai Jiangshan <laijs@...fujitsu.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Patch workqueue: create new slab cache instead of hacking
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 12:54 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 10:03 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Creating a dedicated cache for few objects ? Thats a lot of overhead, at
> > > > > least for SLAB (no merges of caches)
> > > >
> > > > Its some overhead for SLAB (a lot is what? If you tune down the per cpu
> > > > caches it should be a couple of pages) but its none for SLUB.
> > >
> > > SLAB overhead per cache is O(CPUS * nr_node_ids) (unless alien caches
> > > are disabled)
> >
> > nr_node_ids==2 in the standard case these days. Alien caches are minimal.
>
>
> Thats not true. Some machines use lots of nodes (fake nodes) for various
> reasons.
Which is not a typical use case.
> And they cant disable alien caches for performance reasons.
Ok then lets genericize the slub merge in some form so that it works for
all slab allocators.
--
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