Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:09:08 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
       Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
       Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
       Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
       "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Subject: Re: Major regression on hackbench with SLUB (more numbers)
Message-ID: <20071221120908.GA15926@elte.hu>
References: <1197049846.1645.68.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20071211143336.GA17866@elte.hu> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712131416280.25120@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712132010470.30903@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0712132010470.30903@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 910
Lines: 26


* Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:

> Hmmmm... Some tests here on an 8p 8G machine:

> In an extreme case (boot with slub_min_order=9 to get huge page sized 
> slabs) SLUB can win against SLAB:
> 
> N=10 Time: 0.338	Minimally faster
> N=20 Time: 0.560	10% faster
> N=50 Time: 1.353	15% faster

what's up with this regression? There's been absolutely no activity 
about it in the last 8 days: upstream still regresses, -mm still 
regresses and there are no patches posted for testing.

being able to utilize order-0 pages was supposed to be one of the big 
plusses of SLUB, so booting with _2MB_ sized slabs cannot be seriously 
the "fix", right?

	Ingo
--
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/