On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 04:33:43PM +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Joonsoo Kim wrote: > > > Now we have cpu partial slabs facility, so I think that slowpath isn't really > > slow. And it doesn't much increase the management overhead in the node > > partial lists, because of cpu partial slabs. > > Well yes that may address some of the issues here. > > > And larger frame may cause more slab_lock contention or cmpxchg contention > > if there are parallel freeings. > > > > But, I don't know which one is better. Is larger frame still better? :) > > Could you run some tests to figure this one out? There are also > some situations in which we disable the per cpu partial pages though. > F.e. for low latency/realtime. I posted in kernel synthetic > benchmarks for slab a while back. That maybe something to start with. I could try. But my trial would not figure this out, since my machine has just 4 cores which normally cannot produce heavy contention. Anyway, could you tell me where I can find your synthetic benchmarks for slab? Thanks. -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>