On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > The netperf benchmark isn't representative of a heavy slab consuming > > workload, I routinely run jobs on these machines that use 20 times the > > amount of slab. From what I saw in the earlier posting of the per-cpu > > partial list patch, the min_partial value is set to half of what it was > > previously as a per-node partial list. Since these are 16-core, 4 node > > systems, that would mean that after a kmem_cache_shrink() on a cache that > > leaves empty slab on the partial lists that we've doubled the memory for > > slub's partial lists systemwide. > > Cutting down the potential number of empty slabs that we might possible > keep around because we have no partial slabs per node increases memory > usage? > You halved the number of min_partial, but there are 16 partial lists on these machines because they are per-cpu instead of 4 partial lists when they were per-node. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx"> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>