Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751145AbVIWSvG (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:51:06 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751146AbVIWSvG (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:51:06 -0400 Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:5524 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751145AbVIWSvF (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Sep 2005 14:51:05 -0400 Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:50:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20050923.115058.63342389.davem@davemloft.net> To: kiran@scalex86.org Cc: akpm@osdl.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, dipankar@in.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch 0/6] mm: alloc_percpu and bigrefs From: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20050923184052.GA4103@localhost.localdomain> References: <20050923062529.GA4209@localhost.localdomain> <20050923001013.28b7f032.akpm@osdl.org> <20050923184052.GA4103@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: Mew version 4.2.53 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1524 Lines: 30 From: Ravikiran G Thirumalai Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2005 11:40:52 -0700 > As for the benchmarks, tbench on lo was used indicatively. lo performance > does matter for quite a few benchmarks. There are apps which do use lo > extensively. The dst and netdevice changes were made after profiling such > real wold apps. Agreed, per-cpufication of objects which can go up in > size is not the right approach on hindsight, but netdevice.refcount is not > one of those. I can try running a standard mpi benchmark or some > other indicative benchmark if that would help? I worry about real life sites, such as a big web server, that will by definition have hundreds of thousands of routing cache (and thus 'dst') entries active. The memory usage will increase, and that's particularly bad in this kind of case because unlike the 'lo' benchmarks you won't have nodes and cpus fighting over access to the same routes. In such a load the bigrefs are just wasted memory and aren't actually needed. I really would like to encourage a move away from this fascination with optimizating the loopback interface performance on enormous systems, yes even if it is hit hard by the benchmarks. It just means the benchmarks are wrong, not that we should optimize for them. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/