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

Denis Vlasenko
2005-12-28T08:33:22Z

On Wednesday 21 December 2005 11:11, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> I wonder if the 32 and 192 bytes caches are worth to be declared in
> include/linux/kmalloc_sizes.h, at least on x86_64
>
> (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 0 0 65536
> size-32768 2 2 32768
> size-16384 0 0 16384
> size-8192 13 13 8192
> size-4096 161 161 4096
> size-2048 40564 42976 2048
> size-1024 681 800 1024
> size-512 19792 37168 512
> size-256 81 105 256
> size-192 1218 1280 192
> size-64 31278 86907 64
> size-128 5457 10380 128
> size-32 594 784 32

# grep "size-" /proc/slabinfo |grep -v DMA|cut -c1-40
size-131072 0 0 131072
size-65536 0 0 65536
size-32768 1 1 32768
size-16384 0 0 16384
size-8192 253 253 8192
size-4096 89 89 4096
size-2048 248 248 2048
size-1024 312 312 1024
size-512 545 648 512
size-256 213 270 256
size-128 5642 5642 128
size-64 1025 1586 64
size-32 2262 7854 32