From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Free pages from local pcp lists under tight memory conditions From: Rohit Seth In-Reply-To: References: <20051122161000.A22430@unix-os.sc.intel.com> <1132775194.25086.54.camel@akash.sc.intel.com> <20051123115545.69087adf.akpm@osdl.org> <1132779605.25086.69.camel@akash.sc.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 14:29:03 -0800 Message-Id: <1132784943.25086.87.camel@akash.sc.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Andrew Morton , torvalds@osdl.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2005-11-23 at 13:25 -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Rohit Seth wrote: > > > I thought Nick et.al came up with some of the constant values like batch > > size to tackle the page coloring issue specifically. In any case, I > > think one of the key difference between 2.4 and 2.6 allocators is the > > pcp list. And even with the minuscule batch and high watermarks this is > > helping ordinary benchmarks (by reducing the variation from run to run). > > Could you share some benchmark results? > Some components of cpu2k on 2.4 base kernels show in access of 40-50% variation from run to run. The same variations came down to about 10% for 2.6 based kernels. -rohit -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org