From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark From: Tim Chen Reply-To: tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com 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 Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 16:42:56 -0700 Message-Id: <1178322176.23795.219.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: 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 List-ID: 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, 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