[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1341418517.2583.2252.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2012 18:15:17 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: JoonSoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
Cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v2] slub: prefetch next freelist pointer in
__slab_alloc()
On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 00:48 +0900, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
> 2012/7/5 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
> > Its the slow path. I am not convinced its useful on real workloads (not
> > a benchmark)
> >
> > I mean, if a workload hits badly slow path, some more important work
> > should be done to avoid this at a higher level.
> >
>
> In hackbench test, fast path allocation is about to 93%.
> Is it insufficient?
7% is insufficient I am afraid.
One prefetch() in the fast path serves 93% of the allocations,
so added icache pressure is ok.
One prefetch() in slow path serves 7% of the allocations, do you see the
difference ?
Adding a prefetch() is usually a win when a benchmark uses the path one
million times per second.
But adding prefetches also increases kernel size and it hurts globally.
(Latency of the kernel depends on its size, when cpu caches are cold)
--
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