Messages in this thread | | | From | Ed Tomlinson <> | Subject | Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ? | Date | Wed, 21 Dec 2005 07:44:51 -0500 |
| |
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 04:11, Eric Dumazet wrote: > (x86_64 : PAGE_SIZE = 4096, L1_CACHE_BYTES = 64) > > On my machines, I can say that the 32 and 192 sizes could be avoided in favor > in spending less cpu cycles in __find_general_cachep() > > Could some of you post the result of the following command on your machines : > > # grep "size-" /proc/slabinfo |grep -v DMA|cut -c1-40 size-131072 0 0 131072 size-65536 3 3 65536 size-32768 0 0 32768 size-16384 3 3 16384 size-8192 28 28 8192 size-4096 184 184 4096 size-2048 272 272 2048 size-1024 300 300 1024 size-512 275 376 512 size-256 717 720 256 size-192 1120 1220 192 size-64 7720 8568 64 size-128 45019 65830 128 size-32 1627 3333 32
amd64 up
Ed Tomlinson - 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/
| |