Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1

[Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, David Rientjes wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> The netperf benchmark isn't representative of a heavy slab consuming
> workload, I routinely run jobs on these machines that use 20 times the
> amount of slab.  From what I saw in the earlier posting of the per-cpu
> partial list patch, the min_partial value is set to half of what it was
> previously as a per-node partial list.  Since these are 16-core, 4 node
> systems, that would mean that after a kmem_cache_shrink() on a cache that
> leaves empty slab on the partial lists that we've doubled the memory for
> slub's partial lists systemwide.

Cutting down the potential number of empty slabs that we might possible
keep around because we have no partial slabs per node increases memory
usage?

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>