[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0910130231570.27262@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:45:56 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
cc: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Zhang Yanmin <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [this_cpu_xx V6 7/7] this_cpu: slub aggressive use of this_cpu
operations in the hotpaths
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> The patch looks sane to me but the changelog contains no relevant
> numbers on performance. I am fine with the patch going in -percpu but
> the patch probably needs some more beating performance-wise before it
> can go into .33. I'm CC'ing some more people who are known to do SLAB
> performance testing just in case they're interested in looking at the
> patch. In any case,
>
I ran 60-second netperf TCP_RR benchmarks with various thread counts over
two machines, both four quad-core Opterons. I ran the trials ten times
each with both vanilla per-cpu#for-next at 9288f99 and with v6 of this
patchset. The transfer rates were virtually identical showing no
improvement or regression with this patchset in this benchmark.
[ As I reported in http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123839191416472,
this benchmark continues to be the most significant regression slub has
compared to slab. ]
--
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