>> :t-0000128 28739 128 1.3G 20984/20984/8 512 0 99 0 *
>
> Argh. Most slabs contain a single object. Probably due to the conflict resolution.
agreed with the issue exist in lock contention code.
> The obvious fix is to avoid allocating another slab on conflict but how will
> this impact performance?
>
>
> Index: linux-2.6/mm/slub.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.orig/mm/slub.c 2008-08-13 08:06:00.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6/mm/slub.c 2008-08-13 08:07:59.000000000 -0500
> @@ -1253,13 +1253,11 @@
> static inline int lock_and_freeze_slab(struct kmem_cache_node *n,
> struct page *page)
> {
> - if (slab_trylock(page)) {
> - list_del(&page->lru);
> - n->nr_partial--;
> - __SetPageSlubFrozen(page);
> - return 1;
> - }
> - return 0;
> + slab_lock(page);
> + list_del(&page->lru);
> + n->nr_partial--;
> + __SetPageSlubFrozen(page);
> + return 1;
> }
I don't mesure it yet. I don't like this patch.
maybe, it decrease other typical benchmark.
So, I think better way is
1. slab_trylock(), if success goto 10.
2. check fragmentation ratio, if low goto 10
3. slab_lock()
10. return func
I think this way doesn't cause performance regression.
because high fragmentation cause defrag and compaction lately.
So, prevent fragmentation often increase performance.
Thought?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
