Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> > (x86_64 : PAGE_SIZE = 4096, L1_CACHE_BYTES = 64)
> > On my machines, I can say that the 32 and 192 sizes could be avoided in favor 
> > in spending less cpu cycles in __find_general_cachep()
> > Could some of you post the result of the following command on your machines :
> > # grep "size-" /proc/slabinfo |grep -v DMA|cut -c1-40
> size-131072            0      0 131072
> size-65536             3      3  65536
> size-32768             0      0  32768
> size-16384             3      3  16384
> size-8192             28     28   8192
> size-4096            184    184   4096
> size-2048            272    272   2048
> size-1024            300    300   1024
> size-512             275    376    512
> size-256             717    720    256
> size-192            1120   1220    192
> size-64             7720   8568     64
> size-128           45019  65830    128
> size-32             1627   3333     32

size-131072            0      0 131072
size-65536             0      0  65536
size-32768            20     20  32768
size-16384             8      9  16384
size-8192             37     38   8192
size-4096            269    269   4096
size-2048            793    910   2048
size-1024            564    608   1024
size-512             702    856    512
size-256            1485   4005    256
size-128            1209   1350    128
size-64             2858   3363     64
size-32             1538   2714     64
Intel(R) Xeon(TM) MP CPU 3.00GHz
address sizes   : 40 bits physical, 48 bits virtual


Folkert van Heusden

- -- 
Try MultiTail! Multiple windows with logfiles, filtered with regular
expressions, colored output, etc. etc. www.vanheusden.com/multitail/
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your PGP/GPG key signed at www.biglumber.com!
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iIMEARECAEMFAkOpVq48Gmh0dHA6Ly93d3cudmFuaGV1c2Rlbi5jb20vZGF0YS1z
aWduaW5nLXdpdGgtcGdwLXBvbGljeS5odG1sAAoJEDAZDowfKNiuUUEAnR9DJq5M
x+Bj1R+djzCli3bFrJXKAJ9OmCx9FKDaGl6PocRwCZSKURerPA==
=vQhF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
    • From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.0.0
    • From: Junio C Hamano <[email protected]>
  • [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
    • From: Eric Dumazet <[email protected]>
  • Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
    • From: Ed Tomlinson <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH/RFC] SPI: async message handing library update
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH/RFC] SPI core: turn transfers to be linked list
• Previous by thread: Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
• Next by thread: Re: [POLL] SLAB : Are the 32 and 192 bytes caches really usefull on x86_64 machines ?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]