[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <507DA245.9050709@am.sony.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:07:01 -0700
From: Tim Bird <tim.bird@...sony.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC: Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia@...il.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"celinux-dev@...ts.celinuxforum.org"
<celinux-dev@...ts.celinuxforum.org>
Subject: Re: [Q] Default SLAB allocator
On 10/16/2012 05:56 AM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 09:35 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
>
>> Now, returning to the fragmentation. The problem with SLAB is that
>> its smaller cache available for kmalloced objects is 32 bytes;
>> while SLUB allows 8, 16, 24 ...
>>
>> Perhaps adding smaller caches to SLAB might make sense?
>> Is there any strong reason for NOT doing this?
>
> I would remove small kmalloc-XX caches, as sharing a cache line
> is sometime dangerous for performance, because of false sharing.
>
> They make sense only for very small hosts.
That's interesting...
It would be good to measure the performance/size tradeoff here.
I'm interested in very small systems, and it might be worth
the tradeoff, depending on how bad the performance is. Maybe
a new config option would be useful (I can hear the groans now... :-)
Ezequiel - do you have any measurements of how much memory
is wasted by 32-byte kmalloc allocations for smaller objects,
in the tests you've been doing?
-- Tim
=============================
Tim Bird
Architecture Group Chair, CE Workgroup of the Linux Foundation
Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Network Entertainment
=============================
--
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