Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 21 Mar 2012 13:20:11 -0500 (CDT) | From | Christoph Lameter <> | Subject | Re: Patch workqueue: create new slab cache instead of hacking |
| |
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 12:54 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 10:03 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > > > > > > > > Creating a dedicated cache for few objects ? Thats a lot of overhead, at > > > > > least for SLAB (no merges of caches) > > > > > > > > Its some overhead for SLAB (a lot is what? If you tune down the per cpu > > > > caches it should be a couple of pages) but its none for SLUB. > > > > > > SLAB overhead per cache is O(CPUS * nr_node_ids) (unless alien caches > > > are disabled) > > > > nr_node_ids==2 in the standard case these days. Alien caches are minimal. > > > Thats not true. Some machines use lots of nodes (fake nodes) for various > reasons.
Which is not a typical use case.
> And they cant disable alien caches for performance reasons.
Ok then lets genericize the slub merge in some form so that it works for all slab allocators.
| |