[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTin8FczYpPvi79w7iuKOZz3uZtYFfTPitAgQFxzD@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:31:01 -0700
From: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>,
Eilon Greenstein <eilong@...adcom.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: allocate skbs on local node
> This is all conspicuously hand-wavy and unquantified. (IOW: prove it!)
>
> The mooted effects should be tested for on both slab and slub, I
> suggest. They're pretty different beasts.
> --
Some results running netper TCP_RR test with 200 instances, 1 byte
request and response on 16 core AMD using bnx2x with one 16 queues,
one for each CPU.
SLAB
Without patch 553570 tps at 86% CPU
With patch 791883 tps at 93% CPU
SLUB
Without patch 704879 tps at 95% CPU
With patch 775278 tps at 92% CPU
I believe both show good benfits with patch, and it actually looks
like the impact is more pronounced for SLAB. I would also note, that
we have actually already internally patched __netdev_alloc_skb to do
local node allocation which we have been running in production for
quite some time.
Tom
--
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