On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, David Rientjes wrote:

On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Christoph Lameter wrote:

quoted

The per cpu partial lists only add the need for more memory if other
processors have to allocate new pages because they do not have enough
partial slab pages to satisfy their needs. That can be tuned by a cap on
objects.

The netperf benchmark isn't representative of a heavy slab consuming
workload, I routinely run jobs on these machines that use 20 times the
amount of slab.  From what I saw in the earlier posting of the per-cpu
partial list patch, the min_partial value is set to half of what it was
previously as a per-node partial list.  Since these are 16-core, 4 node
systems, that would mean that after a kmem_cache_shrink() on a cache that
leaves empty slab on the partial lists that we've doubled the memory for
slub's partial lists systemwide.

Cutting down the potential number of empty slabs that we might possible
keep around because we have no partial slabs per node increases memory
usage?

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>