[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20130325130345.15B3AE0085@blue.fi.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:03:45 +0200 (EET)
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave@...1.net>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Hillf Danton <dhillf@...il.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2, RFC 04/30] radix-tree: implement preload for multiple
contiguous elements
Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 03/22/2013 02:47 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Dave Hansen wrote:
> >> On 03/14/2013 10:50 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>> +#define RADIX_TREE_PRELOAD_NR 512 /* For THP's benefit */
> >>
> >> This eventually boils down to making the radix_tree_preload array
> >> larger. Do we really want to do this unconditionally if it's only for
> >> THP's benefit?
> >
> > It will be useful not only for THP. Batching can be useful to solve
> > scalability issues.
>
> Still, it seems like something that little machines with no THP support
> probably don't want to pay the cost for. Perhaps you could enable it
> for THP||NR_CPUS>$FOO.
Okay, I'll disable it for !THP. We always can change it if we'll find good
candidate for batching.
> >> For those of us too lazy to go compile a kernel and figure this out in
> >> practice, how much bigger does this make the nodes[] array?
> >
> > We have three possible RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT:
> >
> > #ifdef __KERNEL__
> > #define RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT (CONFIG_BASE_SMALL ? 4 : 6)
> > #else
> > #define RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT 3 /* For more stressful testing */
> > #endif
> >
> > On 64-bit system:
> > For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=3, old array size is 43, new is 107.
> > For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=4, old array size is 31, new is 63.
> > For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=6, old array size is 21, new is 30.
> >
> > On 32-bit system:
> > For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=3, old array size is 21, new is 84.
> > For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=4, old array size is 15, new is 46.
> > For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=6, old array size is 11, new is 19.
> >
> > On most machines we will have RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=6.
>
> Could you stick that in your patch description?
Will do.
> The total cost is "array size" * sizeof(void*) * NR_CPUS, right?
Correct.
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
--
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