On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Peter Zijlstra a écrit :
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 09:18 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
Have you tested the impact of this change on big SMP/NUMA machines?
I hate to see an Altrix crashing to its knees :-)
I tested on a small NUMA machine (2 nodes), with a epoll enabled application,
that use around 100 epoll ctl per second.
Of course, one may write a special benchmark on a BIG SMP/NUMA machine that
defeat these patch, using thousands of epoll ctl per second, but, a normal
(well written ?)
epoll application doesnt constantly add/remove epoll ctl.
Should we waste 8 bytes per 'struct file' for a very unlikely micro benchmark
?
Eric, I can't really say I like this one. Not at least after extensive
tests run on top of it. You are asking to add a bottleneck to save 8 bytes
on an entity that taken alone in more than 120 bytes. Consider that when
you have a "struct file" allocated, the cost on the system is not only the
struct itself, but all the allocations associated with it. For example, if
you consider that a case where you might feel a "struct file" pressure is
when you have hundreds of thousands of network connections, the 8 bytes
saved compared to all the buffers associated with those sockets boils down
to basically nothing.
- Davide
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |