From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 21:57:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark In-Reply-To: <1178584834.15701.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <9D2C22909C6E774EBFB8B5583AE5291C02786032@fmsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com> <1178322083.23795.217.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178584834.15701.18.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 Mon, 7 May 2007, Tim Chen wrote: > However, the output from TCP_STREAM is quite stable. > I am still seeing a 4% difference between the SLAB and SLUB kernel. > Looking at the L2 cache miss rate with emon, I saw 6% more cache miss on > the client side with SLUB. The server side has the same amount of cache > miss. This is test under SMP mode with client and server bound to > different core on separate package. If this is cache miss related then a larger page order may take are of this. Boot with (assume you got 2.6.21-mm1 at least...) slub_min_order=6 slub_max_order=7 which will give you an allocation unit of 256k. Just tried it. It actually works but has no effect here whatsoever on UP netperf performance. netperf performance dropped from 6MB(slab)/6.2MB(slub) on 2.6.21-rc7-mm1 to 4.5MB (both) on 2.6.21-mm1. So I guess there is something also going on with the networking layer. Still have not found a machine here where I could repeat your results. -- 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