![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
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 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||