On Wednesday 14 November 2007 12:58, David Miller wrote: > From: Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:41:58 +1100 > > > On Tuesday 13 November 2007 06:44, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > BTW. your size-2048 kmalloc cache is order-1 in the default setup, > > > > wheras kmalloc(1024) or kmalloc(4096) will be order-0 allocations. > > > > And SLAB also uses order-0 for size-2048. It would be nice if SLUB > > > > did the same... > > > > > > You can try to see the effect that order 0 would have by booting with > > > > > > slub_max_order=0 > > > > Yeah, that didn't help much, but in general I think it would give > > more consistent and reliable behaviour from slub. > > Just a note that I'm not ignoring this issue, I just don't have time > to get to it yet.
No problem. I would like to have helped more, but it's slow going given my lack of network stack knowledge. If I get any more interesting data, I'll send it. > I suspect the issue is about having a huge skb->data linear area for > TCP sends over loopback. We're likely getting a much smaller > skb->data linear data area after the patch in question, the rest using > the sk_buff scatterlist pages which are a little bit more expensive to > process. It didn't seem to be noticeable at 1 client. Unless scatterlist processing is going to cause cacheline bouncing, I don't see why this hurts more as you add CPUs? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
