[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902121022450.3559@qirst.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 10:25:20 -0500 (EST)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com, chinang.ma@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sharad.c.tripathi@...el.com,
arjan@...ux.intel.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@...gic.com,
anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> The default order of kmalloc-8192 on 2*4 stoakley is an issue of calculate_order.
>
>
> slab_size order name
> -------------------------------------------------
> 4096 3 sgpool-128
> 8192 2 kmalloc-8192
> 16384 3 kmalloc-16384
>
> kmalloc-8192's default order is smaller than sgpool-128's.
You reverted the page allocator passthrough patch before this right?
Otherwise kmalloc-8192 should not exist and allocation calls for 8192
bytes would be converted inline to request of an order 1 page from the
page allocator.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists