[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141027075830.GF23379@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 16:58:30 +0900
From: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
Cc: akpm@...uxfoundation.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, penberg@...nel.org, iamjoonsoo@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] [RFC] slub: Fastpath optimization (especially for RT)
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:41:49AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > I found that you said retrieving tid first is sufficient to do
> > things right in old discussion. :)
>
> Right but the tid can be obtained from a different processor.
>
>
> One other aspect of this patchset is that it reduces the cache footprint
> of the alloc and free functions. This typically results in a performance
> increase for the allocator. If we can avoid the page_address() and
> virt_to_head_page() stuff that is required because we drop the ->page
> field in a sufficient number of places then this may be a benefit that
> goes beyond the RT and CONFIG_PREEMPT case.
Yeah... if we can avoid those function calls, it would be good.
But, current struct kmem_cache_cpu occupies just 32 bytes on 64 bits
machine, and, that means just 1 cacheline. Reducing size of struct may have
no remarkable performance benefit in this case.
Thanks.
--
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