* Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As I mentioned in a different e-mail, a way to remove the global
> > hash table is to create per-cpu hashes. The only problem is that in
> > these 8-10% of the cases, freeing would need to look up the other
> > hashes. This would become a problem with a high number of CPUs but
> > I'm not sure whether it would overtake the performance issues
> > introduced by cacheline ping-ponging in the single-hash case.
>
> i dont think it's worth doing that. So we should either do the current
> global lock & hash (bad for scalability), or a pure per-CPU design.
> The pure per-CPU design would have to embedd the CPU ID the object is
> attached to into the allocated object. If that is not feasible then
> only the global hash remains i think.
embedding the info shouldnt be /that/ hard in case of the SLAB: if the
memleak info is at a negative offset from the allocated pointer. I.e.
that if kmalloc() returns 'ptr', the memleak info could be at
ptr-sizeof(memleak_info). That way you dont have to know the size of the
object beforehand and there's absolutely no need for a global hash of
any sort.
(it gets a bit more complex for page aligned allocations for the buddy
and for vmalloc - but that could be solved by adding one extra pointer
into struct page. That is a far more preferable cost than the
locking/cache overhead of a global hash.)
Ingo
-
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/
[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]
