[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1407846532.10122.66.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 05:28:52 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Oren Twaig <oren@...lemp.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
"Shai Fultheim (Shai@...leMP.com)" <Shai@...lemp.com>
Subject: Re: x86: vmalloc and THP
On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 09:07 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 08:00:54AM +0300, Oren Twaig wrote:
> >Does memory allocated using vmalloc() will be mapped using huge
> >pages either directly or later by THP ?
>
> No. It's neither aligned properly, nor physically contiguous.
>
> >If not, is there any fast way to change this behavior ? Maybe by
> >changing the granularity/alignment of such allocations to allow such
> >mapping ?
>
> What's the point to use vmalloc() in this case?
Look at various large hashes we have in the system, all using
vmalloc() :
[ 0.006856] Dentry cache hash table entries: 16777216 (order: 15, 134217728 bytes)
[ 0.033130] Inode-cache hash table entries: 8388608 (order: 14, 67108864 bytes)
[ 1.197621] TCP established hash table entries: 524288 (order: 11, 8388608 bytes)
I would imagine a performance difference if we were using hugepages.
--
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