From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail190.messagelabs.com (mail190.messagelabs.com [216.82.249.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B20126B00C1 for ; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 14:46:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4999C199.4090202@cs.helsinki.fi> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:42:17 +0200 From: Pekka Enberg MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2) References: <20090123154653.GA14517@wotan.suse.de> <200902041748.41801.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20090204152709.GA4799@csn.ul.ie> <200902051459.30064.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> <20090216184200.GA31264@csn.ul.ie> <84144f020902161125r59de8a53nfe01566d20ff1658@mail.gmail.com> <20090216194401.GC31264@csn.ul.ie> In-Reply-To: <20090216194401.GC31264@csn.ul.ie> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: Nick Piggin , Nick Piggin , Linux Memory Management List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andrew Morton , Lin Ming , "Zhang, Yanmin" , Christoph Lameter List-ID: Mel Gorman wrote: >> There's a follow-up patch from Yanmin which >> will make a difference for large allocations when page-allocator >> pass-through is reverted: >> >> http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/penberg/slab-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=79b350ab63458ef1d11747b4f119baea96771a6e > > Is this expected to make a difference to workloads that are not that > allocator intensive? I doubt it'll make much different to speccpu but > conceivably it makes a difference to sysbench. I doubt that too but I fail to see why it's regressing with the revert in the first place for speccpu. Maybe it's cache effects, dunno. Pekka -- 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