lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Aug]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: No, really, stop trying to delete slab until you've finished making slub perform as well
KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:

> new patch is here.
>
> Index: b/mm/slub.c
> ===================================================================
> --- a/mm/slub.c
> +++ b/mm/slub.c
> @@ -1326,9 +1326,11 @@ static struct page *get_any_partial(stru
> * expensive if we do it every time we are trying to find a slab
> * with available objects.
> */
> +#if 0
> if (!s->remote_node_defrag_ratio ||
> get_cycles() % 1024 > s->remote_node_defrag_ratio)
> return NULL;
> +#endif
>
> zonelist = node_zonelist(slab_node(current->mempolicy), flags);
> for_each_zone_zonelist(zone, z, zonelist, high_zoneidx) {

Hmmm.... So always take from partial lists works? That is the same effect that
the setting of the remote_defrag_ratio to 100 should have had (its multiplied
by 10 when storing it).

So its a NUMA only phenomenon. How is performance affected?


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-08-18 16:13    [W:0.083 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site