[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0910131550050.15347@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.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 Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > For an optimized fastpath, I'd expect such a workload would result in at
> > least a slightly higher transfer rate.
>
> There will be no improvements if the load is dominated by the
> instructions in the network layer or caching issues. None of that is
> changed by the path. It only reduces the cycle count in the fastpath.
>
Right, but CONFIG_SLAB shows a 5-6% improvement over CONFIG_SLUB in the
same workload so it shows that the slab allocator does have an impact in
transfer rate. I understand that the performance gain with this patchset,
however, may not be representative with the benchmark since it also
frequently uses the slowpath for kmalloc-256 about 25% of the time and the
added code of the irqless patch may mask the fastpath gain.
--
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