From: Roman Gushchin <klamm@yandex-team.ru>
To: cl@linux-foundation.org, penberg@kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com,
yanmin.zhang@intel.com
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: slub: slab order on multi-processor machines
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:56:43 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51B1A04B.7030003@yandex-team.ru> (raw)
Hi!
While investigating some compaction-related problems, I noticed, that many (even most)
kernel objects are allocated on slabs with order 2 or 3.
This behavior was introduced by commit 9b2cd506e "slub: Calculate min_objects based on
number of processors." by Christoph Lameter.
As I understand, the idea was to make kernel allocations cheaper by reducing the total
number of page allocations (allocating 1 page with order 3 is cheaper than allocating
8 1-ordered pages).
I'm sure, it's true for recently rebooted machine with a lot of free non-fragmented memory.
But is it also true for heavy-loaded machine with fragmented memory?
Are we sure, that it's cheaper to run compaction and allocate order 3 page than to use
small 1-pages slabs?
Do I miss something?
Disabling this behavior dramatically reduces the number of 2- and 3-ordered allocations.
Compaction is performed significantly rarer. This is especially noticeable on machines
with intensive disk i/o. I do not see any performance degradation. But I'm not sure,
that I'm not missing something.
Any comments and/or ideas are welcomed.
Thanks!
Regards,
Roman
--
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 reply other threads:[~2013-06-07 8:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-07 8:56 Roman Gushchin [this message]
2013-06-07 14:12 ` Christoph Lameter
2013-06-07 17:09 ` Roman Gushchin
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=51B1A04B.7030003@yandex-team.ru \
--to=klamm@yandex-team.ru \
--cc=cl@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=penberg@kernel.org \
--cc=yanmin.zhang@intel.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