[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090115135236.GB29283@parisc-linux.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:52:36 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
Cc: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
chinang.ma@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
sharad.c.tripathi@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
andi.kleen@...el.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com,
harita.chilukuri@...el.com, douglas.w.styner@...el.com,
peter.xihong.wang@...el.com, hubert.nueckel@...el.com,
chris.mason@...cle.com, srostedt@...hat.com,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Vasquez <andrew.vasquez@...gic.com>,
Anirban Chakraborty <anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com>
Subject: Re: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 11:46:09AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> It would also be nice if someone could do the performance analysis on
> the SLUB bug. I ran sysbench in oltp mode here and the results look
> like this:
>
> [ number of transactions per second from 10 runs. ]
>
> min max avg sd
> 2.6.29-rc1-slab 833.77 852.32 845.10 4.72
> 2.6.29-rc1-slub 823.61 851.94 836.74 8.57
>
> And no, the numbers are not flipped, SLUB beats SLAB here. :(
Um. More transactions per second is good. Your numbers show SLAB
beating SLUB (even on your dual-CPU system). And SLAB shows a lower
standard deviation, which is also good.
--
Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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