From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 11:10:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark In-Reply-To: <1178298897.23795.195.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <9D2C22909C6E774EBFB8B5583AE5291C02786032@fmsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com> <1178298897.23795.195.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Tim Chen 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, 4 May 2007, Tim Chen wrote: > A side note is that for my tests, I bound the netserver and client to > separate cpu core on different sockets in my tests, to make sure that > the server and client do not share the same cache. Ahhh... You have some scripts that you run. Care to share? This is no NUMA syste? Two processors in an SMP system? So its likely an issue of partial slabs shifting between multiple cpus and if the partial slab is now used on the other cpu then it may be cache cold there. Different sockets mean limitations to FSB bandwidth and bad caching effects. I hope I can reproduce this somewhere. -- 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