From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754633Ab1HBQgn (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:36:43 -0400 Received: from smtp107.prem.mail.ac4.yahoo.com ([76.13.13.46]:38022 "HELO smtp107.prem.mail.ac4.yahoo.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754612Ab1HBQgd (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:36:33 -0400 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-YMail-OSG: 6zjj1yoVM1kNhNkLKxkI.Yx_PSwb2daNCCFTe8jkmrhx6qz MbGZbkc6aJqqLcTiHahpU4F4Djw8PQD2n0.P12EY1sUlGMoNa6i0Ytfc.XBA V1HiyBFL14T7diQQwDLs9elRVJiPQ9P8DL9xuySa31dWgWRnTr.S6s6bbI8X XXNUx40j0YMFmLuZO_TwNJjmNww_nrfioms3iQMSgZ.ubbk6UB8orowS3EkV _G71f_HborE3HFhBrqZJARBdlgtgE3Dwn8TtGF2BtpcYNQEIOeJgQPckH5sB PMAfRP8KtTNneFYn4MXcU3rbBRipJK7bH5WMGtBSD85H3idXZ X-Yahoo-SMTP: _Dag8S.swBC1p4FJKLCXbs8NQzyse1SYSgnAbY0- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:36:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@router.home To: David Rientjes cc: Pekka Enberg , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , hughd@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1312145146.24862.97.camel@jaguar> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, David Rientjes wrote: > allocator, in this case. And the per-cpu partial list will add even > additional slab usage for slub, so this is where my "throwing more memory > at slub to get better performance" came from. I understand that this is a > large NUMA machine, though, and the cost of slub may be substantially > lower on smaller machines. 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. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com (mail6.bemta12.messagelabs.com [216.82.250.247]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10EC26B00EE for ; Tue, 2 Aug 2011 12:36:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 11:36:29 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1312145146.24862.97.camel@jaguar> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: David Rientjes Cc: Pekka Enberg , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , hughd@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, David Rientjes wrote: > allocator, in this case. And the per-cpu partial list will add even > additional slab usage for slub, so this is where my "throwing more memory > at slub to get better performance" came from. I understand that this is a > large NUMA machine, though, and the cost of slub may be substantially > lower on smaller machines. 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. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: email@kvack.org