LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Balbir Singh <>
To: Hugh Dickins <>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <>,
	Andrew Morton <>,
	Sudhir Kumar <>,
	YAMAMOTO Takashi <>,
	Paul Menage <>,,,,,
	David Rientjes <>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Move memory controller allocations to their own slabs (v2)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 09:18:44 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Balbir Singh wrote:
>> On my 64 bit powerpc system (structure size could be different on other systems)
>> 1. sizeof page_cgroup is 40 bytes
>>    which means kmalloc will allocate 64 bytes
>> 2. With 4K pagesize SLAB with HWCACHE_ALIGN, 59 objects are packed per slab
>> 3. With SLUB the value is 102 per slab
> I expect you got those numbers with 2.6.25-rc4?  Towards the end of -rc5
> there's a patch from Nick to make SLUB's treatment of HWCACHE_ALIGN the
> same as SLAB's, so I expect you'd be back to a similar poor density with
> SLUB too.  (But I'm replying without actually testing it out myself.)

You are right, these numbers are against -rc4 and I do see HWCACHE_ALIGN code
for SLUB in the latest kernel -git tree

> I think you'd need a strong reason to choose HWCACHE_ALIGN for these.
> Consider: the (normal configuration) x86_64 struct page size was 56
> bytes for a long time (and still is without MEM_RES_CTLR), but we've
> never inserted padding to make that a round 64 bytes (and they would
> benefit additionally from some simpler arithmetic, not the case with
> page_cgroups).  Though it's good to avoid unnecessary sharing and
> multiple cacheline accesses, it's not so good as to justify almost
> doubling the size of a very very common structure.  I think.

Very good point. I suppose an overhead proportional to the memory on the system
is too much to digest. I think struct page is a good example for page_cgroup to

	Warm Regards,
	Balbir Singh
	Linux Technology Center

  parent reply	other threads:[~2008-03-12  3:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-03-11  6:18 Balbir Singh
2008-03-11  8:11 ` Pavel Emelyanov
2008-03-11  8:15   ` Balbir Singh
2008-03-11  8:35     ` Pavel Emelyanov
2008-03-11 11:09       ` Balbir Singh
2008-03-11 13:05         ` Hugh Dickins
2008-03-12  3:38           ` Nick Piggin
2008-03-12  3:48           ` Balbir Singh [this message]
2008-03-11 12:55 ` Hugh Dickins
2008-03-11 18:47   ` Balbir Singh

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 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] Move memory controller allocations to their own slabs (v2)' \

* 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).