![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Steven Rostedt wrote:
>>Have you benchmarked your own memory manager?
>>kmalloc(1024, GFP_KERNEL) is something like 17 instructions on i386
>>uniprocessor.
>>
>>
>
>Where did you get that? I'm looking at the assembly of it right now and
>it's much larger than 17 instructions. Not to mention that it calls the
>slab functions which might have to invoke the buddy system.
>
>
>
Have you looked at kmem_cache_alloc? kmalloc(1024, GFP_KERNEL) is
compile-time replaced with the appropriate kmem_cache_alloc call. And
the fast path within kmem_cache_alloc is 17 instructions long. Best
case: uniprocessor, no regparams. Unfortunately with cli and popfd, thus
something like 35 cpu cycles on an Athlon 64.
> I haven't clocked the speed of sem compared to kmalloc.
>But I would think that the sem functions are still quicker.
>
>
>
Yes - sem or spin locks are quicker as long as no cache line transfers
are necessary. If the semaphore is accessed by multiple cpus, then
kmalloc would be faster: slab tries hard to avoid taking global locks.
I'm not speaking about contention, just the cache line ping pong for
acquiring a free semaphore.
--
Manfred
-
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: 2005-04-06 13:31 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||