linux-kernel - Re: tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709050006330.7567@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Wed, 5 Sep 2007 00:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...e.hu
Subject: Re: tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench
 and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario?

On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:

> > slub_max_order=3 slub_min_objects=8
> I tried this approach. The testing result showed 2.6.23-rc4 is about
> 2.5% better than 2.6.22. It really resovles the issue.

Note also that the configuration you tried is the way SLUB is configured 
in Andrew's tree.
-
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/