Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1423135AbXEEAfJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 20:35:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161615AbXEEAfJ (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 20:35:09 -0400 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]:6631 "EHLO mga09.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161609AbXEEAfI (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 20:35:08 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.14,494,1170662400"; d="scan'208";a="83988447" Subject: RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark From: Tim Chen Reply-To: tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com To: Christoph Lameter Cc: "Chen, Tim C" , "Siddha, Suresh B" , "Zhang, Yanmin" , "Wang, Peter Xihong" , Arjan van de Ven , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org In-Reply-To: References: <9D2C22909C6E774EBFB8B5583AE5291C02786032@fmsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com> <1178298897.23795.195.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178318609.23795.214.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 16:42:56 -0700 Message-Id: <1178322176.23795.219.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-8) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 613 Lines: 18 On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 16:59 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > to run the tests. The results are about the same as the non-NUMA case, > > with slab about 5% better than slub. > > Hmmmm... both tests were run in the same context? NUMA has additional > overhead in other areas. Both slab and slub tests are tested with the same NUMA options and config. Tim - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/