[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0709111314190.25781@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:19:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
cc: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, mingo@...e.hu,
Mel Gorman <mel@...net.ie>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench
and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario?
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> The impression I got at vm meeting was that SLUB was good to go :(
Its not? I have had Intel test this thoroughly and they assured me that it
is up to SLAB. This particular case is an synthetic tests for a PAGE_SIZE
alloc and SLUB was not optimized for that case because PAGE_SIZEd
allocations should be handled by the page allocators. Quicklists were
introduced for the explicit purpose to get these messy page sized cases
out of the slab allocators.
> But slab allocations don't really control the macro behaviour of a
> benchmark like that so much. So don't wait until something happens
> with the scheduler, fix it now.
Ok so you are for pushing in the page allocator pass through patch from mm
into rc6? Isnt it a bit late for such a change? I would think that 2.6.24
is early enough.
-
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