Re: [rfc][patch] SLQB slab allocator

[Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > Does this mean that SLQB is less efficient than SLUB for off node
> > allocations? SLUB can do off node allocations from the per cpu objects. It
> > does not need to make the distinction for allocation.
>
> I haven't measured them, but that could be the case. However I haven't
> found a workload that does a lot of off-node allocations (short lived
> allocations are better on-node, and long lived ones are not going to
> be so numerous).

A memoryless node is a case where all allocations will be like that.

> That's more complexity, though. Given that objects are often hot when
> they are freed, and need to be touched after they are allocated anyway,
> the simple queue seems to be reasonable.

Yup.

> This case does improve the database score by around 1.5-2%, yes. I
> don't know what you mean exactly, though. What case, and what do you
> mean by bad cache unfriendly programming? I would be very interested
> in improving that benchmark of course, but I don't know what you
> suggest by keeping cachelines hot in the right way?

What I was told about the database test is that it collects lists of
objects from various processors that are then freed on a different
processor. This means all objects are cache cold.

--
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>