LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
To: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
Cc: akpm@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, penberg@kernel.org, iamjoonsoo@lge.com,
	Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] Slab infrastructure for array operations
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 10:57:36 -0600 (CST)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1501271054310.25124@gentwo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150127082132.GE11358@js1304-P5Q-DELUXE>

On Tue, 27 Jan 2015, Joonsoo Kim wrote:

> IMHO, exposing these options is not a good idea. It's really
> implementation specific. And, this flag won't show consistent performance
> according to specific slab implementation. For example, to get best
> performance, if SLAB is used, GFP_SLAB_ARRAY_LOCAL would be the best option,
> but, for the same purpose, if SLUB is used, GFP_SLAB_ARRAY_NEW would
> be the best option. And, performance could also depend on number of objects
> and size.

Why would slab show a better performance? SLUB also can have partial
allocated pages per cpu and could also get data quite fast if only a
minimal number of objects are desired. SLAB is slightly better because the
number of cachelines touches stays small due to the arrangement of the freelist
on the slab page and the queueing approach that does not involve linked
lists.


GFP_SLAB_ARRAY new is best for large quantities in either allocator since
SLAB also has to construct local metadata structures.

> And, overriding gfp flag isn't a good idea. Someday gfp could use
> these values and they can't notice that these are used in slab
> subsystem with different meaning.

We can put a BUILD_BUG_ON in there to ensure that the GFP flags do not get
too high. The upper portion of the GFP flags is also used elsewhere. And
it is an allocation option so it naturally fits in there.


  reply	other threads:[~2015-01-27 16:57 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 [this message]
2015-01-28  1:33       ` Joonsoo Kim
2015-01-28 15:30         ` Christoph Lameter
2015-01-29  7:44           ` Joonsoo Kim
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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=alpine.DEB.2.11.1501271054310.25124@gentwo.org \
    --to=cl@linux.com \
    --cc=akpm@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=brouer@redhat.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
    --cc=iamjoonsoo@lge.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=penberg@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [RFC 1/3] Slab infrastructure for array operations' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* 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).