[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1007151515230.21299@router.home>
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:17:23 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [S+Q2 00/19] SLUB with queueing (V2) beats SLAB netperf TCP_RR
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, David Rientjes wrote:
> There are a couple differences between how you're using it compared to how
> I showed the initial regression between slab and slub, however: you're
> using localhost for your netserver which isn't representative of a real
> networking round-robin workload and you're using a smaller system with
> eight cores. We never measured a _significant_ performance problem with
> slub compared to slab with four or eight cores, the problem only emerges
> on larger systems.
Larger systems would more NUMA support than is present in the current
patches.
> When running this patchset on two (client and server running
> netperf-2.4.5) four 2.2GHz quad-core AMD processors with 64GB of memory,
> here's the results:
What is their NUMA topology? I dont have anything beyond two nodes 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