[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0712140106470.11089@gandalf.stny.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 01:15:54 -0500 (EST)
From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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)
Christoph,
Welcome back from your vacation! :-)
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> In an extreme case (boot with slub_min_order=9 to get huge page sized
> slabs) SLUB can win against SLAB:
>
> N=10 Time: 0.338 Minimally faster
> N=20 Time: 0.560 10% faster
> N=50 Time: 1.353 15% faster
>
I booted back to slub with slub_min_order=9 on the 64way and you are
indeed right about this.
# tests/hackbench 90
Time: 2.109
# chrt -f 10 tests/hackbench 90
Time: 3.775
# tests/hackbench 90
Time: 1.583
# chrt -f 10 tests/hackbench 90
Time: 1.833
# tests/hackbench 90
Time: 1.601
# chrt -f 10 tests/hackbench 90
Time: 3.078
# tests/hackbench 90
Time: 1.321
# chrt -f 10 tests/hackbench 90
Time: 1.933
A flux between 1.321 and 3.775 (*)(the rt runs were higher). But still,
good job at narrowing this down. Now the hard part. Figuring out a way
that will be nice to all users.
-- Steve
(*) The previous runs (without the command line option) were 13 seconds or
so.
--
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