lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3 v2] slub: prefetch next freelist pointer in __slab_alloc()
From
2012/7/5 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, 2012-07-05 at 00:48 +0900, JoonSoo Kim wrote:
>> 2012/7/5 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>:
>> > Its the slow path. I am not convinced its useful on real workloads (not
>> > a benchmark)
>> >
>> > I mean, if a workload hits badly slow path, some more important work
>> > should be done to avoid this at a higher level.
>> >
>>
>> In hackbench test, fast path allocation is about to 93%.
>> Is it insufficient?
>
> 7% is insufficient I am afraid.
>
> One prefetch() in the fast path serves 93% of the allocations,
> so added icache pressure is ok.
>
> One prefetch() in slow path serves 7% of the allocations, do you see the
> difference ?
>
> Adding a prefetch() is usually a win when a benchmark uses the path one
> million times per second.
>
> But adding prefetches also increases kernel size and it hurts globally.
> (Latency of the kernel depends on its size, when cpu caches are cold)
>

Okay.
Thanks for comments which is very helpful to me.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-04 19:01    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans