Re: [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into theallocator

[Christoph Lameter]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Joonsoo Kim wrote:

> Now we have cpu partial slabs facility, so I think that slowpath isn't really
> slow. And it doesn't much increase the management overhead in the node
> partial lists, because of cpu partial slabs.

Well yes that may address some of the issues here.

> And larger frame may cause more slab_lock contention or cmpxchg contention
> if there are parallel freeings.
>
> But, I don't know which one is better. Is larger frame still better? :)

Could you run some tests to figure this one out? There are also
some situations in which we disable the per cpu partial pages though.
F.e. for low latency/realtime. I posted in kernel synthetic
benchmarks for slab a while back. That maybe something to start with.


--
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/