On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:33:43PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > Now we have cpu partial slabs facility, so I think that slowpath isn't > > really > > slow. And it doesn't much increase the management overhead in the node > > partial lists, because of cpu partial slabs. > > Well yes that may address some of the issues here. > > > And larger frame may cause more slab_lock contention or cmpxchg contention > > if there are parallel freeings. > > > > But, I don't know which one is better. Is larger frame still better? :) > > Could you run some tests to figure this one out? There are also > some situations in which we disable the per cpu partial pages though. > F.e. for low latency/realtime. I posted in kernel synthetic > benchmarks for slab a while back. That maybe something to start with.
I could try. But my trial would not figure this out, since my machine has just 4 cores which normally cannot produce heavy contention. Anyway, could you tell me where I can find your synthetic benchmarks for slab? Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
