lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <4970CDB6.6040705@hp.com> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:11:02 -0800 From: Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com> To: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, sfr@...b.auug.org.au, matthew@....cx, matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com, chinang.ma@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, sharad.c.tripathi@...el.com, arjan@...ux.intel.com, andi.kleen@...el.com, suresh.b.siddha@...el.com, harita.chilukuri@...el.com, douglas.w.styner@...el.com, peter.xihong.wang@...el.com, hubert.nueckel@...el.com, chris.mason@...cle.com, srostedt@...hat.com, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, andrew.vasquez@...gic.com, anirban.chakraborty@...gic.com Subject: Re: Mainline kernel OLTP performance update Nick Piggin wrote: > OK, I have these numbers to show I'm not completely off my rocker to suggest > we merge SLQB :) Given these results, how about I ask to merge SLQB as default > in linux-next, then if nothing catastrophic happens, merge it upstream in the > next merge window, then a couple of releases after that, given some time to > test and tweak SLQB, then we plan to bite the bullet and emerge with just one > main slab allocator (plus SLOB). > > > System is a 2socket, 4 core AMD. Not exactly a large system :) Barely NUMA even with just two sockets. > All debug and stats options turned off for > all the allocators; default parameters (ie. SLUB using higher order pages, > and the others tend to be using order-0). SLQB is the version I recently > posted, with some of the prefetching removed according to Pekka's review > (probably a good idea to only add things like that in if/when they prove to > be an improvement). > > ... > > Netperf UDP unidirectional send test (10 runs, higher better): > > Server and client bound to same CPU > SLAB AVG=60.111 STD=1.59382 > SLQB AVG=60.167 STD=0.685347 > SLUB AVG=58.277 STD=0.788328 > > Server and client bound to same socket, different CPUs > SLAB AVG=85.938 STD=0.875794 > SLQB AVG=93.662 STD=2.07434 > SLUB AVG=81.983 STD=0.864362 > > Server and client bound to different sockets > SLAB AVG=78.801 STD=1.44118 > SLQB AVG=78.269 STD=1.10457 > SLUB AVG=71.334 STD=1.16809 > ... > I haven't done any non-local network tests. Networking is the one of the > subsystems most heavily dependent on slab performance, so if anybody > cares to run their favourite tests, that would be really helpful. I'm guessing, but then are these Mbit/s figures? Would that be the sending throughput or the receiving throughput? I love to see netperf used, but why UDP and loopback? Also, how about the service demands? rick jones -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists