On Mon Jul 3, 2023 at 02:09, David Rientjes wrote: > I think we need more data beyond just kernbench. Christoph's point about > different page sizes is interesting. In the above results, I don't know > the page orders for the various slab caches that this workload will > stress. I think the memory overhead data may be different depending on > how slab_max_order is being used, if at all. > > We should be able to run this through a variety of different benchmarks > and measure peak slab usage at the same time for due diligence. I support > the change in the default, I would just prefer to know what the > implications of it is. > > Is it possible to collect data for other microbenchmarks and real-world > workloads? And perhaps also with different page sizes where this will > impact memory overhead more? I can help running more workloads once we > have the next set of data. > David, I agree about the need to perform those tests on hardware using larger pages. I will collect data if I have the chance to get my hands on one of these systems. Do you have specific tests or workload in mind ? Compiling the kernel with files sitting on an XFS partition is not exhaustive but it is the only test I could think of that is both easy to set up and can be reproduced while keeping external interferences as little as possible. -- Julian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
