lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Dec]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    Subject[POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
    I wonder if the 32 and 192 bytes caches are worth to be declared in 
    include/linux/kmalloc_sizes.h, at least on x86_64

    (x86_64 : PAGE_SIZE = 4096, L1_CACHE_BYTES = 64)

    On my machines, I can say that the 32 and 192 sizes could be avoided in favor
    in spending less cpu cycles in __find_general_cachep()

    Could some of you post the result of the following command on your machines :

    # grep "size-" /proc/slabinfo |grep -v DMA|cut -c1-40

    size-131072 0 0 131072
    size-65536 0 0 65536
    size-32768 2 2 32768
    size-16384 0 0 16384
    size-8192 13 13 8192
    size-4096 161 161 4096
    size-2048 40564 42976 2048
    size-1024 681 800 1024
    size-512 19792 37168 512
    size-256 81 105 256
    size-192 1218 1280 192
    size-64 31278 86907 64
    size-128 5457 10380 128
    size-32 594 784 32

    Thank you

    PS : I have no idea why the last lines (size-192, 64, 128, 32) are not ordered...

    Eric
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-12-21 10:14    [W:0.021 / U:62.620 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site