[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20071113.175804.151698768.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 17:58:04 -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: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:41:58 +1100
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007 06:44, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > BTW. your size-2048 kmalloc cache is order-1 in the default setup,
> > > wheras kmalloc(1024) or kmalloc(4096) will be order-0 allocations. And
> > > SLAB also uses order-0 for size-2048. It would be nice if SLUB did the
> > > same...
> >
> > You can try to see the effect that order 0 would have by booting with
> >
> > slub_max_order=0
>
> Yeah, that didn't help much, but in general I think it would give
> more consistent and reliable behaviour from slub.
Just a note that I'm not ignoring this issue, I just don't have time
to get to it yet.
I suspect the issue is about having a huge skb->data linear area for
TCP sends over loopback. We're likely getting a much smaller
skb->data linear data area after the patch in question, the rest using
the sk_buff scatterlist pages which are a little bit more expensive to
process.
-
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