linux-kernel - Re: hackbench regression since 2.6.25-rc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0803132333020.24204@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
Date:	Thu, 13 Mar 2008 23:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
To:	"Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@...y.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: hackbench regression since 2.6.25-rc

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:

> > So block 192 and 512's and very active and their fast free percentage 
> > is low.
> On my 8-core stoakley, there is no such regression. Below data is after testing.

Ok get the detailed statistics for this configuration as well. Then we 
can see what kind of slub behavior changes between both configurations.

The 16p is really one node? No strange variances in memory latencies? 

--
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/