LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* kmem_cache_create loop for find the proper gfporder
@ 2007-03-24 23:49 Bin Chen
2007-03-25 15:30 ` Pekka Enberg
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Bin Chen @ 2007-03-24 23:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel
I have some doubts about the loop to find the gfporder of a cache. For
the code below, its main purpose is to find a gfporder value that can
make the internal fragmentation less that 1/8 of the total slab size.
It is done by increase gfporder for low number to high(possibly 0 to
MAX_GFP_ORDER). But why increase the gfporder(or slab size) can
decrease the internal fragmentation?)
A simple example, suppose the slab management stuff is kept off-slab,
if the gfporder is zero, and the object size in slab is 1000, the
wasted space is 4096 mod 1000 = 96, but with 4096 * 2(increase
gfporder by 1), the space is 8192 mod 1000 = 192, 192 > 96.
Is it right?
By the way, is the first time gfporder is 0? Who initialized it in
cache_cache?
/* Cal size (in pages) of slabs, and the num of objs per slab.
* This could be made much more intelligent. For now, try to avoid
* using high page-orders for slabs. When the gfp() funcs are more
* friendly towards high-order requests, this should be changed.
*/
do {
unsigned int break_flag = 0;
cal_wastage:
kmem_cache_estimate(cachep->gfporder, size, flags,
&left_over, &cachep->num);
if (break_flag)
break;
if (cachep->gfporder >= MAX_GFP_ORDER)
break;
if (!cachep->num)
goto next;
if (flags & CFLGS_OFF_SLAB && cachep->num > offslab_limit) {
/* Oops, this num of objs will cause problems. */
cachep->gfporder--;
break_flag++;
goto cal_wastage;
}
/*
* Large num of objs is good, but v. large slabs are currently
* bad for the gfp()s.
*/
if (cachep->gfporder >= slab_break_gfp_order)
break;
if ((left_over*8) <= (PAGE_SIZE<<cachep->gfporder))
break; /* Acceptable internal fragmentation. */
next:
cachep->gfporder++;
} while (1);
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: kmem_cache_create loop for find the proper gfporder
2007-03-24 23:49 kmem_cache_create loop for find the proper gfporder Bin Chen
@ 2007-03-25 15:30 ` Pekka Enberg
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Pekka Enberg @ 2007-03-25 15:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bin Chen; +Cc: linux-kernel
On 3/25/07, Bin Chen <binary.chen@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is done by increase gfporder for low number to high(possibly 0 to
> MAX_GFP_ORDER). But why increase the gfporder(or slab size) can
> decrease the internal fragmentation?)
>
> A simple example, suppose the slab management stuff is kept off-slab,
> if the gfporder is zero, and the object size in slab is 1000, the
> wasted space is 4096 mod 1000 = 96, but with 4096 * 2(increase
> gfporder by 1), the space is 8192 mod 1000 = 192, 192 > 96.
You didn't simulate the algorithm long enough. If you had, you'd hit
order five which wastes only 72 bytes in your example.
Pekka
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-03-25 15:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-03-24 23:49 kmem_cache_create loop for find the proper gfporder Bin Chen
2007-03-25 15:30 ` Pekka Enberg
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).