From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail172.messagelabs.com (mail172.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.3]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 22BC1600227 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 11:18:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by bwz9 with SMTP id 9so888249bwz.14 for ; Mon, 28 Jun 2010 08:18:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20100625212026.810557229@quilx.com> <20100626022441.GC29809@laptop> Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:18:24 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [S+Q 00/16] SLUB with Queueing beats SLAB in hackbench From: Pekka Enberg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Nick Piggin , linux-mm@kvack.org, Matt Mackall , David Rientjes , Mel Gorman List-ID: On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, Pekka Enberg wrote: >> > Hackbench I don't think is that interesting. SLQB was beating SLAB >> > too. >> >> We've seen regressions pop up with hackbench so I think it's >> interesting. Not the most interesting one, for sure, nor conclusive. On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 1:12 PM, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Hackbench was frequently cited in performance tests. Which benchmarks > would be of interest? =A0I am off this week so dont expect a fast respons= e > from me. I guess "netperf TCP_RR" is the most interesting one because that's a known benchmark where SLUB performs poorly when compared to SLAB. Mel's extensive slab benchmarks are also worth looking at: http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0902.0/00745.html -- 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