[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071211143336.GA17866@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:33:36 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: Major regression on hackbench with SLUB (more numbers)
* Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> wrote:
> Hackbench seems to show this regression the most. In my tests I didn't
> see much change with kernel builds and such, but the focus was on
> scheduling not memory management. I'll run my kernel tests next for
> both SLAB and SLUB and see if there's any difference there.
i just ran various benchmarks on an 8-way (8x 700 MHz Xeon, 4GB RAM):
AVG v2.6.24.slab v2.6.24.slub [ smaller is better ]
-----------------------------------------
mmap: 1052.66 1049.33 ( 0%)
ctx-2: 4.32 4.30 ( 0%)
select: 41.95 43.69 ( 4%)
proc-exec: 394.45 391.92 ( 0%)
hackbench-10: 1.12 2.99 (166%)
hackbench-20: 2.04 6.67 (226%)
hackbench-50: 5.03 17.50 (247%)
and hackbench overhead stands out, by a huge margin. Other stuff is
within measurement noise. Neither SLUB nor SLAB debugging was turned on,
all other debugging options were off too.
Ingo
--
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