mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jörg-Volker Peetz" <jvpeetz@web.de>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Glauber Costa <glommer@parallels.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
	Paul Tuner <pjt@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] proc:  speedup /proc/stat handling
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:00:58 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4F266A5A.6050207@web.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1327915555.2288.18.camel@edumazet-HP-Compaq-6005-Pro-SFF-PC>

Eric Dumazet wrote, on 01/30/12 10:25:
> Le lundi 30 janvier 2012 à 09:06 +0100, Jörg-Volker Peetz a écrit :
>> Eric Dumazet wrote, on 01/25/12 01:26:
>>> Le mercredi 25 janvier 2012 à 09:18 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki a écrit :
>>>
>>>> BTW, what is the reason of this change ?
>>>>
>>>>> -	unsigned size = 4096 * (1 + num_possible_cpus() / 32);
>>>>> +	unsigned size = 1024 + 128 * num_possible_cpus();
>>>>
>>>> I think size of buffer is affected by the number of online cpus.
>>>> (Maybe 128 is enough but please add comment why 128 ?)
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is no change, as 4096/32 is 128 bytes per cpu.
>>>
>>
>> Wrong math, only num_possible_cpus() is divided by 32. Thus,
>>
>> -	unsigned size = 4096 * (1 + num_possible_cpus() / 32);
>> +	unsigned size = 4096 + 128 * num_possible_cpus();
>>
>> <snip>
> 
> 
> It is good math, once you take the time to think a bit about it.
> 
> The original question was about the 128 * num_possible_cpus()
> 
> 4096/32 is 128 as I said. 
> 
> The 4096 -> 1024 is just taking into account fact that once you do the
> correct computations, you dont need initial 4096 value, and 1024 is more
> than enough.

Thanks for your explanation, that makes sense now. At first, I was mislead by
your comment "There is no change" which was apparently related to the second
term in the formula.

> 
> Example on a dual core machine : 
> 
> # dmesg|grep nr_irq
> [    0.000000] nr_irqs_gsi: 40
> [    0.000000] NR_IRQS:2304 nr_irqs:712 16
> 
> size = 1024 + 2*128 + 2*712 = 2704 bytes (rounded to 4096 by kmalloc())
> 
> # wc -c /proc/stat
> 1767 /proc/stat
> 
> Problem with original math was that for a machine with 16 cpus or a
> machine with 1 cpu, we ended with the same 4096 value. That was a real
> problem.
> 
> If we instead use "unsigned size = 4096 + 128 * num_possible_cpus();" as
> you suggest, we would always allocate 2 pages of memory, this is not
> needed at all for typical 1/2/4 way machines.
> 
-- 
Best regards,
Jörg-Volker.


      reply	other threads:[~2012-01-30 10:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-01-20 15:59 [PATCH] " Eric Dumazet
2012-01-20 22:55 ` Andrew Morton
2012-01-23 10:16 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-01-23 10:33   ` Glauber Costa
2012-01-24  1:25     ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-01-25  0:01 ` [PATCH v2] " Eric Dumazet
2012-01-25  0:12   ` Andrew Morton
2012-01-25  0:22     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-25  1:27       ` Andrew Morton
2012-01-25  5:29         ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-26  1:04           ` Andrew Morton
2012-01-26  9:55             ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-01-27  0:43               ` Andrew Morton
2012-01-27  1:09                 ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-01-27  1:18                   ` Andrew Morton
2012-01-30  5:16                     ` [PATCH] Add num_to_str() for speedup /proc/stat KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-01-30 23:20                       ` Andrew Morton
2012-01-30 23:58                         ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-02-01 14:43                       ` Andrea Righi
2012-02-01 23:46                         ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-01-27  7:09                   ` [PATCH v2] proc: speedup /proc/stat handling Eric Dumazet
2012-01-25  0:18   ` KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
2012-01-25  0:26     ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-30  8:06       ` Jörg-Volker Peetz
2012-01-30  9:25         ` Eric Dumazet
2012-01-30 10:00           ` Jörg-Volker Peetz [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4F266A5A.6050207@web.de \
    --to=jvpeetz@web.de \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=glommer@parallels.com \
    --cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux@arm.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=pjt@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

Powered by JetHome