On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 10:24:09AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>
> > > You can use a similar approach than in SLUB. Reduce the size of the per
> > > cpu array objects to zero. Then SLAB will always fall back to its slow
> > > path in cache_flushar
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:01:55PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> 2014-06-02 21:10 GMT+09:00 Vladimir Davydov :
> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:41:55PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> >> According to my code reading, slabs_to_free() doesn't return number of
> >> free slabs. This bug is introduced by 0fa810
On Sat, 31 May 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> > You can use a similar approach than in SLUB. Reduce the size of the per
> > cpu array objects to zero. Then SLAB will always fall back to its slow
> > path in cache_flusharray() where you may be able to do something with less
> > of an impact on per
2014-06-02 21:10 GMT+09:00 Vladimir Davydov :
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:41:55PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
>> According to my code reading, slabs_to_free() doesn't return number of
>> free slabs. This bug is introduced by 0fa8103b. I think that it is
>> better to fix it before applyting this patc
On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 01:41:55PM +0900, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> According to my code reading, slabs_to_free() doesn't return number of
> free slabs. This bug is introduced by 0fa8103b. I think that it is
> better to fix it before applyting this patch. Otherwise, use n->free_objects
> instead of slab
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 05:51:11PM +0400, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> There is no use in keeping free objects/slabs on dead memcg caches,
> because they will never be allocated. So let's make cache_reap() shrink
> as many free objects from such caches as possible.
>
> Note the difference between SLA
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:01:26AM -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 30 May 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
>
> > We don't disable free objects caching for SLAB, because it would force
> > kfree to always take a spin lock, which would degrade performance
> > significantly.
>
> You can use a
On Fri, 30 May 2014, Vladimir Davydov wrote:
> There is no use in keeping free objects/slabs on dead memcg caches,
> because they will never be allocated. So let's make cache_reap() shrink
> as many free objects from such caches as possible.
>
> Note the difference between SLAB and SLUB handling o
There is no use in keeping free objects/slabs on dead memcg caches,
because they will never be allocated. So let's make cache_reap() shrink
as many free objects from such caches as possible.
Note the difference between SLAB and SLUB handling of dead memcg caches.
For SLUB, dead cache destruction i
9 matches
Mail list logo
