[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1010191337370.20631@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [UnifiedV4 00/16] The Unified slab allocator (V4)
On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> V3->V4:
> - Lots of debugging
> - Performance optimizations (more would be good)...
> - Drop per slab locking in favor of per node locking for
> partial lists (queuing implies freeing large amounts of objects
> to per node lists of slab).
> - Implement object expiration via reclaim VM logic.
>
I applied this set on top of Pekka's for-next tree reverted back to
5d1f57e4 since it doesn't apply later then that.
Overall, the results are _much_ better than the vanilla slub allocator
that I frequently saw ~20% regressions with the TCP_RR netperf benchmark
on a couple of my machines with larger cpu counts. However, there still
is a significant performance degradation compared to slab.
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're the results:
threads SLAB SLUB diff
16 207038 184389 -10.9%
32 266105 234386 -11.9%
48 287989 252733 -12.2%
64 307572 277221 - 9.9%
80 309802 284199 - 8.3%
96 302959 291743 - 3.7%
112 307381 297459 - 3.2%
128 314582 299340 - 4.8%
144 331945 299648 - 9.7%
160 321882 314192 - 2.4%
--
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