[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020902120807v25f52301s2713d143b38f3d8c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:07:51 +0200
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
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
Hi Christoph,
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.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Christoph Lameter
<cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> 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.
Yup, I assume that's the case here.
--
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