Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] SLUB: dynamic per-cache MIN_PARTIAL
From: Pekka Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>
To: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, cl@linux-foundation.org
In-Reply-To: <20080812122751.GY8618@parisc-linux.org>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0808050037400.26319@sbz-30.cs.Helsinki.FI>
	 <20080812122751.GY8618@parisc-linux.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:33:53 +0300
Message-Id: <1218544433.7813.301.camel@penberg-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1083
Lines: 23

Hi Matthew,

On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 12:39:36AM +0300, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> > This patch changes the static MIN_PARTIAL to a dynamic per-cache ->min_partial
> > value that is calculated from object size. The bigger the object size, the more
> > pages we keep on the partial list.
> > 
> > I tested SLAB, SLUB, and SLUB with this patch on Jens Axboe's 'netio' example
> > script of the fio benchmarking tool. The script stresses the networking
> > subsystem which should also give a fairly good beating of kmalloc() et al.

﻿On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 06:27 -0600, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> We tested this patch and it was performance-neutral on TPC-C.  I was
> hoping it would give a nice improvement ... so I'm disappointed.  But at
> least there's no regression!

OK, so your regression is something else then. Well, thanks for testing!

--
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/