Re: [PATCH 1/3] slub: set a criteria for slub node partial adding

[Shaohua Li]

On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 09:29 +0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011, Shaohua Li wrote:
> 
> > With the per-cpu partial list, I didn't see any workload which is still
> > suffering from the list lock, so I suppose both the trashing approach
> > and pick 25% used slab approach don't help.
> 
> This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with contention on list_lock, 
> it has to do with the fact that ~99% of allocations come from the slowpath 
> since the cpu slab only has one free object when it is activated, that's 
> what the statistics indicated for kmalloc-256 and kmalloc-2k.  That's what 
> I called "slab thrashing": the continual deactivation of the cpu slab and 
> picking from the partial list that would only have one or two free objects 
> causing the vast majority of allocations to require the slowpath.
if vast majority of allocation needs picking from partial list of node,
the list_lock will have contention too. But I'd say avoiding the slab
thrashing does increase fastpath. How much it can improve performance I
don't know. The slowpath (not involving list_lock case, so picking
per-cpu partial list) is already _very_ fast these days.

--
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/