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

[Ed Tomlinson <edt@aei.ca>]

On Wednesday 21 December 2005 04:11, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> (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

amd64 up 

Ed Tomlinson
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/