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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans