Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 11:55:10 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Slab allocator Message-ID: <200202271955.g1RJtAj30178@apollo.backplane.com> References: <200202271926.g1RJQCm29905@apollo.backplane.com> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0202271128580.97278-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20020227194256.GR80761@elvis.mu.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:
:* Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> [020227 11:40] wrote:
:>
:>
:> On Wed, 27 Feb 2002, Matthew Dillon wrote:
:>
:> >
:> > :PS Sorry for the long winded email. :-)
:> >
:> > Well, one thing I've noticed right off the bat is that the code
:> > is trying to take advantage of per-cpu queues but is still
:> > having to obtain a per-cpu mutex to lock the per-cpu queue.
:>
:> I was wondering abuot that myself :-)
:
:It's basically the pre-emption stuff you guys are wondering about
:along with the possiblity of free'ing back to another cpu's
:cache that may be an issue.
:
:Jeff, are you fee'ing memory back to the cache it was initially
:allocated from or not?
:
:-Alfred
I don't know what Jeff is doing there but I do seem to recall a
paper from somewhere that indicated it was more efficient to free memory
to the current cpu's per-cpu cache rather then back to the original
cpu's cache because the current cpu's hardware L1/L2 cache likely already
has mastership of the memory. I think Linux does things this way.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200202271955.g1RJtAj30178>