Re: slab-nomerge (was Re: [git pull] device mapper changes for 4.3)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Sep 3, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Sergey Senozhatsky
<sergey.senozhatsky.work@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, I did some quite simple-minded
> "slab_nomerge = 0" vs. "slab_nomerge = 1" tests today on my old
> x86_64 box (4gigs of RAM, ext4, 4.2.0-next-20150903):

So out of interest, was this slab or slub? Also, how repeatable is
this? The memory usage between two boots tends to be rather fragile -
some of the bigger slab users are dentries and inodes, and various
filesystem scanning events will end up skewing things a _lot_.

But if it turns out that the numbers are pretty stable, and sharing
really doesn't save memory, then that is certainly a big failure. I
think Christoph did much of his work for bigger machines where one of
the SLAB issues was the NUMA overhead, and who knows - maybe it worked
well for the load and machine in question, but not necessarily
elsewhere.

Interesting.

                   Linus

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel



[Index of Archives]     [DM Crypt]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux