[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x2o84144f021004260309k9edf9e88t92e4c988d12de234@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 13:09:21 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
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
Hi,
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.
On 04/26/2010 09:22 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> OK, so does anyone know why hyper-threading would change things for
>> the per-CPU allocator?
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> wrote:
> 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.
Yanmin, do we see a lot of remote frees for your hackbench run? IIRC,
it's the "deactivate_remote_frees" stat when CONFIG_SLAB_STATS is
enabled.
Pekka
--
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