Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 14:01:08 -0800 (PST)
From: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SLUB: Increasing partial pages
In-Reply-To: <20080116214127.GA11559@parisc-linux.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801161347160.11353@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
References: <20080116195949.GO18741@parisc-linux.org>
 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801161219050.9694@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
 <20080116214127.GA11559@parisc-linux.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 825
Lines: 20

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:

> I sent you a mail on December 6th ... here are the contents of that
> mail:

Dec 6th? I was on vacation then and it seems that I was unable to 
reproduce the oopses. Can I get some backtraces or other information 
that would allow me to diagnose the problem?

> Applying just patches 1-7 and 9 leads to a slight (0.34%) performance
> reduction compared to slub.  That is 6.45% versus slab, reduces to 6.79%
> with the 8 patches applied.

Patch 8 is the one that optimizes the fastpath. How much runtime 
variability have these tests?
--
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/