[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071113.223726.40898879.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:37:26 -0800 (PST)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: nickpiggin@...oo.com.au
Cc: clameter@....com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
herbert@...dor.apana.org.au, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression
with tbench
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 05:14:27 +1100
> On Wednesday 14 November 2007 17:12, David Miller wrote:
> > Is your test system using HIGHMEM?
> >
> > That's one thing the page vector in the sk_buff can do a lot,
> > kmaps.
>
> No, it's an x86-64, so no highmem.
Ok.
> What's also interesting is that SLAB apparently doesn't have this
> condition. The first thing that sprung to mind is that SLAB caches
> order > 0 allocations, while SLUB does not. However if anything,
> that should actually favour the SLUB numbers if network is avoiding
> order > 0 allocations.
>
> I'm doing some oprofile runs now to see if I can get any more info.
Here are some other things you can play around with:
1) Monitor the values of skb->len and skb->data_len for packets
going over loopback.
2) Try removing NETIF_F_SG in drivers/net/loopback.c's dev->feastures
setting.
-
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