[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47FA3F9B.6040303@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 17:36:59 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
Cc: Robert Olsson <Robert.Olsson@...a.slu.se>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] fib_trie: memory waste solutions
Andi Kleen a écrit :
> On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 04:42:35PM +0200, Robert Olsson wrote:
>
>> Andi Kleen writes:
>>
>> > > Do we get slower with vmalloc due to TLB-lookups etc? Guess this
>> > > should be investigated.
>> >
>> > In some cases it might even go faster because a lot of x86 CPUs
>> > have far more 4K TLBs than 2M TLBs. vmalloc is just quite expensive
>> > in setup/free time, but that shouldn't be a big issue here.
>>
>>
>> I've did some rDoS testing and the lookup performance is the same or
>> slightly better. So it should be fine.
>>
>
> If you want more realistic worst case numbers run something in user space in
> the background that thrashes the TLBs constantly and then see how
> the numbers change.
>
> The main advantage of using large pages is that they tend to be separated
> from 4K TLBs and since most user space doesn't use large pages it
> gives the kernel an effective private TLB pool.
>
> With vmalloc it will now compete with whatever other TLB pigs are active.
>
Yes, but with vmalloc(), NUMA machines have some chance to distribute
this big area on several nodes
(only if the process currently expanding the fib_trie root node has an
appropriate numa_policy.... ah well :) :) )
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists