Re: [PATCH 01/02] cpuset memory spread slab cache filesys

[Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>]

On Wednesday 01 March 2006 19:58, Paul Jackson wrote:
> Andi wrote:
> > The main reason i'm reluctant to use this is that the cpuset fast path
> > overhead (e.g. in memory allocators etc.) is quite large
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> I spent much time minimizing that overhead over the last few months, as
> a direct result of your recommendation to do so.

IIRC my recommendation only optimized the case of nobody using
cpuset if I remember correctly. 

Using a single cpuset would already drop into the slow path, right?

Hmm, possibly it's better now, but I remember being shocked last
time I looked at the code in detail ow much code it executed for a normal 
page allocation and how many cache lines it touched. This was some time
ago admittedly.

Also on a different angle I would like to make the dcache/inode spreading 
basically default on x86-64 and I'm not sure I want to get into the business
of explaining all the distributions how to set up cpusets and set up
new file systems.
For that a single switch that can be just set by default is much more
practical.

> 
> Especially in the case that all tasks are in the root cpuset (as in the
> scenario I just suggested for setting this memory spreading policy for
> all tasks), the overhead is practically zero. 

Ok.

> The key hook is an 
> inline test done (usually) once per page allocation on an essentially
> read only global 'number_of_cpusets' that determines it is <= 1.
> 
> I disagree with your "quite large" characterization.

Agreed perhaps it was somewhat exaggerated.

-Andi
-
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/