On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 07:09:07 -0700 William Lee Irwin III <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:04:08 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> only 4.4 times faster, and more scalable, since we don't bounce the
> >> upper level locks around.
>
> On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 01:22:51AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > I'm not sure what we're looking at here. radix-tree changes? Locking
> > changes? Both?
> > If we have a whole pile of pages to insert then there are obvious gains
> > from not taking the lock once per page (gang insert). But I expect there
> > will also be gains from not walking down the radix tree once per page too:
> > walk all the way down and populate all the way to the end of the node.
>
> The gang allocation affair would may also want to make the calls into
> the page allocator batched. For instance, grab enough compound pages to
> build the gang under the lock, since we're going to blow the per-cpu
> lists with so many pages, then break the compound pages up outside the
> zone->lock.
Sure, but...
Allocating a single order-3 (say) page _is_ a form of batching
We don't want compound pages here: just higher-order ones
Higher-order allocations bypass the per-cpu lists
> I think it'd be good to have some corresponding tactics for freeing as
> well.
hm, hadn't thought about that - would need to peek at contiguous pages in
the pagecache and see if we can gang-free them as higher-order pages.
The place to do that is perhaps inside the per-cpu magazines: it's more
general. Dunno if it would net advantageous though.
-
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]
