[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20070827165126.a1a9846b.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:51:26 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/6] Per cpu structures for SLUB
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:50:10 -0700 (PDT)
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>
> > I'm struggling a bit to understand these numbers. Bigger is better, I
> > assume? In what units are these numbers?
>
> No less is better. These are cycle counts. Hmmm... We discussed these
> cycle counts so much in the last week that I forgot to mention that.
>
> > > Page allocator pass through
> > > ---------------------------
> > > There is a significant difference in the columns marked with a * because
> > > of the way that allocations for page sized objects are handled.
> >
> > OK, but what happened to the third pair of columns (Concurrent Alloc,
> > Kmalloc) for 1024 and 2048-byte allocations? They seem to have become
> > significantly slower?
>
> There is a significant performance increase there. That is the main point
> of the patch.
>
> > Thanks for running the numbers, but it's still a bit hard to work out
> > whether these changes are an aggregate benefit?
>
> There is a drawback because of the additional code introduced in the fast
> path. However, the regular kmalloc case shows improvements throughout.
> This is in particular of importance for SMP systems. We see an improvement
> even for 2 processors.
umm, OK. When you have time, could you please whizz up a clearer
changelog for this one?
-
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