Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?

[Denis Vlasenko]

On Wednesday 21 December 2005 11:11, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> I wonder if the 32 and 192 bytes caches are worth to be declared in 
> include/linux/kmalloc_sizes.h, at least on x86_64
> 
> (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             0      0  65536
> size-32768             2      2  32768
> size-16384             0      0  16384
> size-8192             13     13   8192
> size-4096            161    161   4096
> size-2048          40564  42976   2048
> size-1024            681    800   1024
> size-512           19792  37168    512
> size-256              81    105    256
> size-192            1218   1280    192
> size-64            31278  86907     64
> size-128            5457  10380    128
> size-32              594    784     32

# grep "size-" /proc/slabinfo |grep -v DMA|cut -c1-40
size-131072            0      0 131072
size-65536             0      0  65536
size-32768             1      1  32768
size-16384             0      0  16384
size-8192            253    253   8192
size-4096             89     89   4096
size-2048            248    248   2048
size-1024            312    312   1024
size-512             545    648    512
size-256             213    270    256
size-128            5642   5642    128
size-64             1025   1586     64
size-32             2262   7854     32
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/