Re: [PATCHv2, RFC 04/30] radix-tree: implement preload for multiplecontiguous elements

From: Dave Hansen
Date: Fri Mar 22 2013 - 10:37:20 EST


On 03/22/2013 02:47 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> Dave Hansen wrote:
>> On 03/14/2013 10:50 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>>> +#define RADIX_TREE_PRELOAD_NR 512 /* For THP's benefit */
>>
>> This eventually boils down to making the radix_tree_preload array
>> larger. Do we really want to do this unconditionally if it's only for
>> THP's benefit?
>
> It will be useful not only for THP. Batching can be useful to solve
> scalability issues.

Still, it seems like something that little machines with no THP support
probably don't want to pay the cost for. Perhaps you could enable it
for THP||NR_CPUS>$FOO.

>> For those of us too lazy to go compile a kernel and figure this out in
>> practice, how much bigger does this make the nodes[] array?
>
> We have three possible RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT:
>
> #ifdef __KERNEL__
> #define RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT (CONFIG_BASE_SMALL ? 4 : 6)
> #else
> #define RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT 3 /* For more stressful testing */
> #endif
>
> On 64-bit system:
> For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=3, old array size is 43, new is 107.
> For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=4, old array size is 31, new is 63.
> For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=6, old array size is 21, new is 30.
>
> On 32-bit system:
> For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=3, old array size is 21, new is 84.
> For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=4, old array size is 15, new is 46.
> For RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=6, old array size is 11, new is 19.
>
> On most machines we will have RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT=6.

Could you stick that in your patch description? The total cost is
"array size" * sizeof(void*) * NR_CPUS, right?

-- Dave Hansen, Intel OTC Scalability Team
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/