Re: [rfc][patch] SLQB slab allocator

[Christoph Lameter]

On Mon, 15 Dec 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:

> > Does this mean that SLQB is less efficient than SLUB for off node
> > allocations? SLUB can do off node allocations from the per cpu objects. It
> > does not need to make the distinction for allocation.
>
> I haven't measured them, but that could be the case. However I haven't
> found a workload that does a lot of off-node allocations (short lived
> allocations are better on-node, and long lived ones are not going to
> be so numerous).

A memoryless node is a case where all allocations will be like that.

> That's more complexity, though. Given that objects are often hot when
> they are freed, and need to be touched after they are allocated anyway,
> the simple queue seems to be reasonable.

Yup.

> This case does improve the database score by around 1.5-2%, yes. I
> don't know what you mean exactly, though. What case, and what do you
> mean by bad cache unfriendly programming? I would be very interested
> in improving that benchmark of course, but I don't know what you
> suggest by keeping cachelines hot in the right way?

What I was told about the database test is that it collects lists of
objects from various processors that are then freed on a different
processor. This means all objects are cache cold.
--
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/