[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 16:42:56 -0700
From: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
"Siddha, Suresh B" <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin.zhang@...el.com>,
"Wang, Peter Xihong" <peter.xihong.wang@...el.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 16:59 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> >
> > to run the tests. The results are about the same as the non-NUMA case,
> > with slab about 5% better than slub.
>
> Hmmmm... both tests were run in the same context? NUMA has additional
> overhead in other areas.
Both slab and slub tests are tested with the same NUMA options and
config.
Tim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists