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

[Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>]

Folkert van Heusden a écrit :

> 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

Hi Folkert

Your results are interesting : size-32 seems to use objects of size 64 !

> size-32             1538   2714     64 <<HERE>>

So I guess that size-32 cache could be avoided at least for EMT (I take you 
run a 64 bits kernel ?)

Eric
-
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/