[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1108150928200.24941@router.home>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:29:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
cc: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>, tj@...nel.org,
Metathronius Galabant <m.galabant@...glemail.com>,
Matt Mackall <mpm@...enic.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Adrian Drzewiecki <z@...e.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [slub p4 0/7] slub: per cpu partial lists V4
On Sat, 13 Aug 2011, David Rientjes wrote:
> I'm currently 35,000 feet above Chicago going about 611 mph, so what
> better time to benchmark this patchset on my netperf testing rack!
>
> threads before after
> 16 78031 74714 (-4.3%)
> 32 118269 115810 (-2.1%)
> 48 150787 150165 (-0.4%)
> 64 189932 187766 (-1.1%)
> 80 221189 223682 (+1.1%)
> 96 239807 246222 (+2.7%)
> 112 262135 271329 (+3.5%)
> 128 273612 286782 (+4.8%)
> 144 280009 293943 (+5.0%)
> 160 285972 299798 (+4.8%)
The higher the contention the better the performance. But the -4% on non
contention is worrisome.
--
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