lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv2, RFC 04/30] radix-tree: implement preload for multiple contiguous elements
On 03/22/2013 02:47 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 03/14/2013 10:50 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> +#define RADIX_TREE_PRELOAD_NR 512 /* For THP's benefit */
>>
>> This eventually boils down to making the radix_tree_preload array
>> larger. Do we really want to do this unconditionally if it's only for
>> THP's benefit?
>
> It will be useful not only for THP. Batching can be useful to solve
> scalability issues.

Still, it seems like something that little machines with no THP support
probably don't want to pay the cost for. Perhaps you could enable it
for THP||NR_CPUS>$FOO.

>> For those of us too lazy to go compile a kernel and figure this out in
>> practice, how much bigger does this make the nodes[] array?
>
> We have three possible RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT:
>
> #ifdef __KERNEL__
> #define RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT (CONFIG_BASE_SMALL ? 4 : 6)
> #else
> #define RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT 3 /* For more stressful testing */
> #endif
>
> On 64-bit system:
> For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=3, old array size is 43, new is 107.
> For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=4, old array size is 31, new is 63.
> For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=6, old array size is 21, new is 30.
>
> On 32-bit system:
> For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=3, old array size is 21, new is 84.
> For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=4, old array size is 15, new is 46.
> For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=6, old array size is 11, new is 19.
>
> On most machines we will have RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=6.

Could you stick that in your patch description? The total cost is
"array size" * sizeof(void*) * NR_CPUS, right?

-- Dave Hansen, Intel OTC Scalability Team


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-22 22:43    [W:0.394 / U:0.060 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site