Re: [patch 2/2] fs: buffer: move allocation failure loop into the allocator

Christoph Lameter
2013-12-04T16:46:09Z

On Thu, 5 Dec 2013, Joonsoo Kim wrote:

> Now we have cpu partial slabs facility, so I think that slowpath isn't really
> slow. And it doesn't much increase the management overhead in the node
> partial lists, because of cpu partial slabs.

Well yes that may address some of the issues here.

> And larger frame may cause more slab_lock contention or cmpxchg contention
> if there are parallel freeings.
>
> But, I don't know which one is better. Is larger frame still better? :)

Could you run some tests to figure this one out? There are also
some situations in which we disable the per cpu partial pages though.
F.e. for low latency/realtime. I posted in kernel synthetic
benchmarks for slab a while back. That maybe something to start with.