[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AJkA0AC2CGauZEv3r-l2napW.1.1587114742624.Hmail.bernard@vivo.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 17:12:22 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
From: 赵军奎 <bernard@...o.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"opensource.kernel" <opensource.kernel@...o.com>
Subject: Re:Re: [PATCH] kmalloc_index optimization(code size & runtime stable)
Date: 2020-04-17 11:23:54
To: Bernard Zhao <bernard@...o.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,Pekka Enberg <penberg@...nel.org>,David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@....com>,Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,linux-mm@...ck.org,linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,kernel@...o.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kmalloc_index optimization(code size & runtime stable)>On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 07:03:30PM -0700, Bernard Zhao wrote:
>> kmalloc_index inline function code size optimization and runtime
>> performance stability optimization. After optimization, the function
>> kmalloc_index is more stable, the size will never affecte the function`s
>> execution efficiency.
>> And follow test data shows that the performance of new optimization
>> exceeds the original algorithm when applying for more than 512 Bytes
>> (include 512B).And new optimization runtime is more stable than before.
>
>That's all very well and good, but the vast majority of allocations
>are less than 512 bytes in size! Your numbers show that on average,
>this patch makes the kernel slower!
>
This is indeed the case, the new algorithm is stable at a time level, but
there is a certain performance loss for relatively small memory(little than 512).
I will continue to pay attention to this part later. Thanks.
>> size time/Per 100 million times.us
>> old fun new fun with optimise
>> 8 203777 241934
>> 16 245611 409278
>> 32 236384 408419
>> 64 275499 447732
>> 128 354909 416439
>> 256 360472 406598
>> 512 431072 409168
>> 1024 463822 407401
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists