Re: SLUB defrag pull request?

[Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>]

Christoph Lameter a ecrit :
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2008, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
>> At alloc time, I remember I added a prefetchw() call in SLAB in 
>> __cache_alloc(),
>> this could explain some differences between SLUB and SLAB too, since SLAB
>> gives a hint to processor to warm its cache.
> 
> SLUB touches objects by default when allocating. And it does it 
> immediately in slab_alloc() in order to retrieve the pointer to the next 
> object. So there is no point of hinting there right now.
> 

Please note SLUB touches by reading object.

prefetchw() gives a hint to cpu saying this cache line is going to be *modified*, even
if first access is a read. Some architectures can save some bus transactions, acquiring
the cache line in an exclusive way instead of shared one.


> If we go to the pointer arrays then the situation is similar to SLAB 
> where the object is not touched by the allocator. Then the hint would be 
> useful again.

It is usefull right now for ((SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU | SLAB_POISON) or ctor caches.

Probably not that important because many objects are very large anyway, and a prefetchw()
of the begining of object is partial.



--
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>