[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BD564BE.6020700@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:02:38 +0200
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
CC: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Kernel Testers List <kernel-testers@...r.kernel.org>,
Maciej Rutecki <maciej.rutecki@...il.com>,
Alex Shi <alex.shi@...el.com>, tim.c.chen@...el.com
Subject: Re: [Bug #15713] hackbench regression due to commit 9dfc6e68bfe6e
Hello,
On 04/26/2010 09:22 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Zhang, Yanmin
> <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> I haven't been able to reproduce this either on my Core 2 machine.
>> Mostly, the regression exists on Nehalem machines. I suspect it's related to
>> hyper-threading machine.
>
> OK, so does anyone know why hyper-threading would change things for
> the per-CPU allocator?
My wild speculation is that previously the cpu_slub structures of two
neighboring threads ended up on the same cacheline by accident thanks
to the back to back allocation. W/ the percpu allocator, this no
longer would happen as the allocator groups percpu data together
per-cpu.
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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