[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50462DF5.1000806@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:36:05 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] virtio-ring: Allocate indirect buffers from cache
when possible
On 09/04/2012 07:34 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/31/2012 12:56 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 11:36:07AM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote:
>>> On 08/30/2012 03:38 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>> >> +static unsigned int indirect_alloc_thresh = 16;
>>> > Why 16? Please make is MAX_SG + 1 this makes some sense.
>>>
>>> Wouldn't MAX_SG mean we always allocate from the cache? Isn't the memory waste
>>> too big in this case?
>>
>> Sorry. I really meant MAX_SKB_FRAGS + 1. MAX_SKB_FRAGS is 17 so gets us
>> threshold of 18. It is less than the size of an skb+shinfo itself so -
>> does it look too big to you? Also why do you think 16 is not too big but
>> 18 is? If there's a reason then I am fine with 16 too but then please
>> put it in code comment near where the value is set.
>>
>> Yes this means virtio net always allocates from cache
>> but this is a good thing, isn't it? Gets us more consistent
>> performance.
>
> kmalloc() also goes to a cache. Is there a measurable difference?
>
> Ugh, there's an ugly loop in __find_general_cachep(), which really wants
> to be replaced with fls().
>
Actually, not, as the loop will be very short for small sizes.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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