Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1

[Christoph Lameter]

On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, David Rientjes wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > The per cpu partial lists only add the need for more memory if other
> > processors have to allocate new pages because they do not have enough
> > partial slab pages to satisfy their needs. That can be tuned by a cap on
> > objects.
> >
>
> The netperf benchmark isn't representative of a heavy slab consuming
> workload, I routinely run jobs on these machines that use 20 times the
> amount of slab.  From what I saw in the earlier posting of the per-cpu
> partial list patch, the min_partial value is set to half of what it was
> previously as a per-node partial list.  Since these are 16-core, 4 node
> systems, that would mean that after a kmem_cache_shrink() on a cache that
> leaves empty slab on the partial lists that we've doubled the memory for
> slub's partial lists systemwide.

Cutting down the potential number of empty slabs that we might possible
keep around because we have no partial slabs per node increases memory
usage?

--
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/