From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
To: Richard Kennedy <richard@rsk.demon.co.uk>
Cc: penberg@cs.helsinki.fi, mpm@selenic.com,
linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC] slub: increasing order reduces memory usage of some key caches
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:52:56 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <487E1958.9060606@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1216211371.3122.46.camel@castor.localdomain>
You can get a similar effect by booting with a kernel parameter slub_min_objects=20 or so.
The fundamental difference in your patch is that you check for the wasted space in terms of a fraction of the size of a single object whereas the current logic only checks in terms of fractions of a page.
We could add an additional condition that the wasted space be no larger than half an object?
Affected slab configurations
24 byte sized caches now become an order 1 cache.
72 byte sizes caches now become order 3
96 byte 0 - > 1
320 1 -> 2
448 2 -> 3
buffer_head 0 -> 1
idr_layer_cache 2 -> 3
inode_cache 2 -> 3
journal_* 1 -> 2
etc
So the effect would be a significant enlargement of caches.
In general the speed of slub is bigger the larger the allocations it can get from the page allocator. The page allocators performance is pretty slow compared to slub alloc logic so its a win to minimize calls to it. However, that in turn will put pressure on
larger page allocations.
--
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:[~2008-07-16 15:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-16 12:29 Richard Kennedy
2008-07-16 13:21 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-07-16 13:58 ` Richard Kennedy
2008-07-16 14:03 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-07-16 14:30 ` Richard Kennedy
2008-07-16 14:33 ` Vegard Nossum
2008-07-16 14:46 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-07-18 9:57 ` Richard Kennedy
2008-07-18 14:17 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-07-18 14:20 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-07-18 14:42 ` Richard Kennedy
2008-07-18 14:55 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-07-18 15:22 ` Richard Kennedy
2008-07-18 17:13 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-07-16 19:52 ` Mel Gorman
2008-07-17 9:48 ` Richard Kennedy
2008-07-16 15:52 ` Christoph Lameter [this message]
2008-07-16 15:59 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-07-17 10:09 ` Richard Kennedy
2008-07-17 16:56 ` Christoph Lameter
2008-07-18 10:17 ` Richard Kennedy
2008-07-18 14:21 ` Christoph Lameter
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=487E1958.9060606@linux-foundation.org \
--to=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=penberg@cs.helsinki.fi \
--cc=richard@rsk.demon.co.uk \
/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