Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 23:17:52 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: Memory allocation performance Message-ID: <20080202231725.F66602@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <47A4F8EE.3070202@FreeBSD.org> References: <47A25412.3010301@FreeBSD.org> <47A25A0D.2080508@elischer.org> <47A2C2A2.5040109@FreeBSD.org> <20080201185435.X88034@fledge.watson.org> <47A43873.40801@FreeBSD.org> <20080202095658.R63379@fledge.watson.org> <47A4E934.1050207@FreeBSD.org> <47A4F1AF.9090306@FreeBSD.org> <20080202224923.T66602@fledge.watson.org> <47A4F8EE.3070202@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Alexander Motin wrote: > Robert Watson wrote: >> Basically, the goal would be to make the pcpu cache FIFO as much as >> possible as that maximizes the chances that the newly allocated object >> already has lines in the cache. > > Why FIFO? I think LIFO (stack) should be better for this goal as the last > freed object has more chances to be still present in cache. Sorry, brain-o -- indeed, as I described, LIFO, rather than as a I wrote. :-) Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080202231725.F66602>