[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0000013f0b7b993c-35844ed2-81be-4146-ab3c-6c803006576b-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 19:20:17 +0000
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: JoonSoo Kim <js1304@...il.com>
cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Clark Williams <clark@...hat.com>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RT LATENCY] 249 microsecond latency caused by slub's
unfreeze_partials() code.
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
> And I re-read Steven initial problem report in RT kernel and find that
> unfreeze_partial() do lock and unlock several times. This means that
> each page in cpu partial list doesn't come from same node. Why do we
> add other node's slab to this cpu partial list? This is also not good
> for general case. How about considering node affinity in __slab_free()?
> IMHO, if we implement this, Steven's problem can be solved.
We may need the other nodes pages if we consistently allocate from there.
__slab_alloc() ensures that only pages from the correct node are used. It
will drop pages that do not come from the proper nodes.
Filtering in __slab_free would mean that we cannot improve performance on
remote frees.
--
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