![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
David Lang a écrit : > On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Eric Dumazet wrote: >> Andi Kleen a écrit : >>> Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com> writes: >>>> 1) Reduces the size of (struct fdtable) to exactly 64 bytes on 32bits >>>> platforms, lowering kmalloc() allocated space by 50%. >>> >>> It should be probably a kmem_cache_alloc() instead of a kmalloc >>> in the first place anyways. This would reduce fragmentation. >> >> Well in theory yes, if you really expect thousand of tasks running... >> But for most machines, number of concurrent tasks is < 200, and using >> a special cache for this is not a win. > > is it enough of a win on machines with thousands of concurrent tasks > that it would be a useful config option? Well..., not if NR_CPUS is big too. (We just saw a thread on lkml about raising NR_CPUS to 1024 on ia64). On a 1024 CPUS machine, a kmem cache could use at least 1 MB for its internal structures, plus 1024 pages (PAGE_SIZE) for holding the caches (one cache per CPU), if you assume at least one task was created on behalf each cpu. if PAGE_SIZE is 64KB, you end up with 65 MB of ram for the cache. Even with 100.000 tasks running on the machine, its not a win. slab caches are very complex machinery that consume O(NR_CPUS) ram. 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: 2006-01-06 06:38 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||