From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com (mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.247]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10EC26B00EE for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:36:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1312145146.24862.97.camel@jaguar> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Pekka Enberg , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , hughd@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, David Rientjes wrote: > allocator, in this case. And the per-cpu partial list will add even > additional slab usage for slub, so this is where my "throwing more memory > at slub to get better performance" came from. I understand that this is a > large NUMA machine, though, and the cost of slub may be substantially > lower on smaller machines. The per cpu partial lists only add the need for more memory if other processors have to allocate new pages because they do not have enough partial slab pages to satisfy their needs. That can be tuned by a cap on objects. -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org