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: <1189385792.14611.1.camel@ymzhang>
Date:	Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:56:32 +0800
From:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Cc:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	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 Sat, 2007-09-08 at 18:08 +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 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?
Process scheduler and small SLUB per-cpu cache work together to create the tebnch regression.

Pls. see the starting of the thread.

-yanmin
-
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/