LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joonsoo Kim <>
To: Christoph Lameter <>
Cc:, LKML <>,
	Linux Memory Management List <>,
	Pekka Enberg <>,, Jesper Dangaard Brouer <>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] Slab infrastructure for array operations
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 16:44:43 +0900	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150129074443.GA19607@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 09:30:56AM -0600, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2015, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> > > GFP_SLAB_ARRAY new is best for large quantities in either allocator since
> > > SLAB also has to construct local metadata structures.
> >
> > In case of SLAB, there is just a little more work to construct local metadata so
> > GFP_SLAB_ARRAY_NEW would not show better performance
> > than GFP_SLAB_ARRAY_LOCAL, because it would cause more overhead due to
> > more page allocations. Because of this characteristic, I said that
> > which option is
> > the best is implementation specific and therefore we should not expose it.
> For large amounts of objects (hundreds or higher) GFP_SLAB_ARRAY_LOCAL
> will never have enough objects. GFP_SLAB_ARRAY_NEW will go to the page
> allocator and bypass free table creation and all the queuing that objects
> go through normally in SLAB. AFAICT its going to be a significant win.
> A similar situation is true for the freeing operation. If the freeing
> operation results in all objects in a page being freed then we can also
> bypass that and put the page directly back into the page allocator (to be
> implemented once we agree on an approach).
> > Even if we narrow down the problem to the SLUB, choosing correct option is
> > difficult enough. User should know how many objects are cached in this
> > kmem_cache
> > in order to choose best option since relative quantity would make
> > performance difference.
> Ok we can add a function call to calculate the number of objects cached
> per cpu and per node? But then that is rather fluid and could change any
> moment.
> > And, how many objects are cached in this kmem_cache could be changed
> > whenever implementation changed.
> The default when no options are specified is to first exhaust the node
> partial objects, then allocate new slabs as long as we have more than
> objects per page left and only then satisfy from cpu local object. I think
> that is satisfactory for the majority of the cases.
> The detailed control options were requested at the meeting in Auckland at
> the LCA. I am fine with dropping those if they do not make sense. Makes
> the API and implementation simpler. Jesper, are you ok with this?

IMHO, it'd be better to choose a proper way of allocation by slab itself
and not to expose options to API user. We could decide the best option
according to current status of kmem_cache and requested object number
and internal implementation.

Is there any obvious example these option are needed for user?


  reply	other threads:[~2015-01-29  7:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-01-23 21:37 [RFC 0/3] Slab allocator " Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 21:37 ` [RFC 1/3] Slab infrastructure for " Christoph Lameter
2015-01-27  8:21   ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-01-27 16:57     ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-28  1:33       ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-01-28 15:30         ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-29  7:44           ` Joonsoo Kim [this message]
2015-02-03 22:55             ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2015-01-23 21:37 ` [RFC 2/3] slub: Support " Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 21:37 ` [RFC 3/3] Array alloc test code Christoph Lameter
2015-01-23 22:57 ` [RFC 0/3] Slab allocator array operations Andrew Morton
2015-01-24  0:28   ` Christoph Lameter
2015-02-03 23:19     ` Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2015-02-06 18:39       ` Christoph Lameter

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20150129074443.GA19607@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [RFC 1/3] Slab infrastructure for array operations' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).