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: <200709081808.42421.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Sat, 8 Sep 2007 18:08:42 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
	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 Wednesday 05 September 2007 17:07, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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.

It still doesn't sound like it is competitive with SLAB at the same sizes.
What's the problem?

-
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/