Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: X much slower in 2.0.24 than in 1.2.13 | From | (Kevin Buhr) | Date | 05 Nov 1996 11:42:27 -0600 |
| |
alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk (Alan Cox) writes: | | > The 2.0.24 changes to "struct sock" in "linux/include/net/sock.h" push | > its size, in my kernel, up to 0x1fc. This new size, plus the | > "kmalloc"'s "block_header" is just big enough to push "struct sock" | > allocations to the next allocation order. | | We hardly ever allocate a struct sock
I wasn't thinking of the actual *allocation* overhead; I was thinking of the working set of (unswappable) pages needed to play with a bunch of existing "struct sock"s. Perhaps this isn't as much of an issue as I first assumed, but I see all that extra time spent in "free_pages" and "_get_free_pages", and I imagine the kernel working twice as hard to find memory for everything else simply because its pool of "struct sock"s is twice as big as it used to be.
Kevin <buhr@stat.wisc.edu>
|  |