From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] increase struct page size?!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 11:25:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070520092552.GA7318@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070520084647.GF19966@holomorphy.com>
On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 01:46:47AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 11:15:01AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> The cache cost argument is specious. Even misaligned, smaller is
> >> smaller.
>
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 07:22:29AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Of course smaller is smaller ;) Why would that make the cache cost
> > argument specious?
>
> It's not possible to ignore aggregation. For instance, for a subset
> of mem_map whose size ignoring alignment would otherwise fit in the
> cache to completely avoid sharing any cachelines between page
> structures requires page structures to be separated by at least one
> mem_map index. This is highly unlikely in uniform distributions.
But that wasn't my argument. I _know_ there are cases where the smaller
struct would be better, and I'm sure they would even arise in a running
kernel.
> On Sat, May 19, 2007 at 11:15:01AM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> The cache footprint reduction is merely amortized,
> >> probabilistic, etc.
>
> On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 07:22:29AM +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > I don't really know what you mean by this, or what part of my cache cost
> > argument you disagree with...
> > I think it is that you could construct mem_map access patterns, without
> > specifically looking at alignment, where a 56 byte struct page would suffer
> > about 75% more cache misses than a 64 byte aligned one (and you could also
> > get about 12% fewer cache misses with other access patterns).
> > I also think the kernel's mem_map access patterns would be more on the
> > random side, so overall would result in significantly fewer cache misses
> > with 64 byte aligned pages.
> > Which part do you disagree with?
>
> The lack of consideration of the average case. I'll see what I can smoke
> out there.
I _am_ considering the average case, and I consider the aligned structure
is likely to win on average :) I just don't have numbers for it yet.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-20 9:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-18 4:08 Nick Piggin
2007-05-18 4:47 ` David Miller, Nick Piggin
2007-05-18 5:12 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-18 5:22 ` David Miller, Nick Piggin
2007-05-18 5:31 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-18 18:15 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-05-18 7:19 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-18 7:32 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-18 7:43 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-18 7:59 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-18 9:42 ` David Howells
2007-05-19 1:30 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-18 12:06 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-18 15:42 ` Hugh Dickins
2007-05-19 1:22 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-19 17:53 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-20 22:50 ` Matthew Wilcox
2007-05-18 18:14 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-05-18 20:37 ` Luck, Tony
2007-05-21 6:28 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2007-05-19 1:25 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-19 2:03 ` [rfc] increase struct page size?! (now sparsemem vmemmap) Christoph Lameter
2007-05-19 15:43 ` Andy Whitcroft
2007-05-19 18:15 ` [rfc] increase struct page size?! William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-19 18:25 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-05-20 4:10 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-05-20 12:56 ` Andi Kleen
2007-05-21 17:08 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-05-22 0:30 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2007-05-22 0:38 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-05-22 0:58 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2007-05-22 9:44 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2007-05-19 22:09 ` Andrew Morton
2007-05-20 7:26 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-21 9:12 ` Helge Hafting
2007-05-21 9:45 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-20 5:22 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-20 8:46 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-20 9:25 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2007-05-21 8:08 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-21 9:27 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-21 11:26 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-22 0:52 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-21 22:43 ` Matt Mackall
2007-05-22 1:08 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-22 1:13 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-05-22 1:39 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-22 1:57 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-22 5:04 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-22 6:24 ` Nick Piggin
2007-05-22 10:59 ` William Lee Irwin III
2007-05-21 9:31 ` Eric Dumazet
2007-05-21 17:06 ` Christoph Lameter
2007-05-20 17:13 ` Andrea Arcangeli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20070520092552.GA7318@wotan.suse.de \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-arch@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=wli@holomorphy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox