[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOJsxLFeZS-6wt+_+Lronc5ds-D05=PYDHna4-8pNu8aBP+pCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 08:40:13 +0300
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>
Cc: "Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@...el.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] slub Discard slab page only when node partials > minimum setting
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Alex,Shi <alex.shi@...el.com> wrote:
>> > BTW, some testing results for your PCP SLUB:
>> >
>> > for hackbench process testing:
>> > on WSM-EP, inc ~60%, NHM-EP inc ~25%
>> > on NHM-EX, inc ~200%, core2-EP, inc ~250%.
>> > on Tigerton-EX, inc 1900%, :)
>> >
>> > for hackbench thread testing:
>> > on WSM-EP, no clear inc, NHM-EP no clear inc
>> > on NHM-EX, inc 10%, core2-EP, inc ~20%.
>> > on Tigertion-EX, inc 100%,
>> >
>> > for netperf loopback testing, no clear performance change.
>> did you add my patch to add page to partial list tail in the test?
>> Without it the per-cpu partial list can have more significant impact to
>> reduce lock contention, so the result isn't precise.
>>
>
> No, the penberg tree did include your patch on slub/partial head.
> Actually PCP won't take that path, so, there is no need for your patch.
> I daft a patch to remove some unused code in __slab_free, that related
> this, and will send it out later.
Which patch is that? Please send me it to penberg@...helsinki.fi as
@kernel.org email forward isn't working.
--
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