lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Re: [PATCH V2] kmalloc_index optimization(code size & runtime stable)
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 07:55:03PM +0800, 赵军奎 wrote:
> Sure, i just received some kbuild compiler error mails and prompt me to do something?
> I don`t know why this happened, so i update the patch again.

Don't. The patch has been NACKed, so there's no need to post a v2.

If you want to do something useful, how about looking at the effect
of adding different slab sizes? There's a fairly common pattern of
allocating things which are a power of two + a header. So it may make
sense to have kmalloc caches of 320 (256 + 64), 576 (512 + 64) and 1088
(1024 + 64). I use 64 here as that's the size of a cacheline, so we
won't get false sharing between users.

This could save a fair quantity of memory; today if you allocate 512 +
8 bytes, it will round up to 1024. So we'll get 4 allocations per 4kB
page, but with a 576-byte slab, we'd get 7 allocations per 4kB page.
Of course, if there aren't a lot of users which allocate memory in this
range, then it'll be a waste of memory. On my laptop, it seems like
there might be a decent amount of allocations in the right range:

kmalloc-2k 3881 4384 2048 16 8 : tunables 0 0 0 : sla
bdata 274 274 0
kmalloc-1k 6488 7056 1024 16 4 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 441 441 0
kmalloc-512 7700 8256 512 16 2 : tunables 0 0 0 : slabdata 516 516 0

Now, maybe 576 isn't quite the right size. Need to try it on a variety
of configurations and find out. Want to investigate this?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-21 16:37    [W:0.058 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site