Re: [GIT PULL] Lockless SLUB slowpaths for v3.1-rc1

[David Rientjes]

On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> > The netperf benchmark isn't representative of a heavy slab consuming
> > workload, I routinely run jobs on these machines that use 20 times the
> > amount of slab.  From what I saw in the earlier posting of the per-cpu
> > partial list patch, the min_partial value is set to half of what it was
> > previously as a per-node partial list.  Since these are 16-core, 4 node
> > systems, that would mean that after a kmem_cache_shrink() on a cache that
> > leaves empty slab on the partial lists that we've doubled the memory for
> > slub's partial lists systemwide.
> 
> Cutting down the potential number of empty slabs that we might possible
> keep around because we have no partial slabs per node increases memory
> usage?
> 

You halved the number of min_partial, but there are 16 partial lists on 
these machines because they are per-cpu instead of 4 partial lists when 
they were per-node.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/