lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RT LATENCY] 249 microsecond latency caused by slub's unfreeze_partials() code.
From
Date
On Fri, 2013-03-22 at 15:41 +0000, Christoph Lameter wrote:

> The control is via the cpu_partial field in /sys/kernel/slab/<cache>/
>
> There is also slabs_cpu_partial which gives a view as to how many objects
> are cached in each per cpu structure. Do a cat
>
> /sys/kernel/*/slabs_cpu_partial to get a view of what the situation is.
> Any abnormally high numbers?
>
> The default for the number of per cpu partial objects should be 30 or so.

I just triggered another latency:

hackbenc-31634 5d..31 103261.991668: sched_switch: hackbench:31634 [120] D ==> hackbench:36093 [120]
hackbenc-36093 5d...0 103261.991670: funcgraph_entry: ! 225.665 us | unfreeze_partials();
hackbenc-36093 5d...0 103261.991897: funcgraph_entry: | smp_apic_timer_interrupt() {
hackbenc-36093 5d.h10 103261.991897: hrtimer_expire_entry: hrtimer=0xffff881f5ca7fe88 now=103293011955940 function=hrtimer_wakeup/0x0
hackbenc-36093 5d.h30 103261.991898: sched_wakeup: cyclictest:8946 [4] success=1 CPU:005
hackbenc-36093 5dN..0 103261.991901: funcgraph_exit: 3.589 us | }
hackbenc-36093 5d..30 103261.991902: sched_switch: hackbench:36093 [120] R ==> cyclictest:8946 [4]

I did a: cat /sys/kernel/slab/*/slabs_cpu_partial > slab_partials

I uploaded it here:

http://rostedt.homelinux.com/private/slab_partials

See anything I should be worried about?

Thanks,

-- Steve





\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-23 05:41    [W:0.135 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site