From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 15:02:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark In-Reply-To: <1178658124.15701.35.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: References: <9D2C22909C6E774EBFB8B5583AE5291C02786032@fmsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com> <1178322083.23795.217.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178584834.15701.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1178658124.15701.35.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 Tue, 8 May 2007, Tim Chen wrote: > I tried the slub-patches and the avoid atomic overhead patch against > 2.6.21-mm1. It brings the TCP_STREAM performance for SLUB to the SLAB > level. The patches not mentioned in the "series" file did not apply > cleanly to 2.6.21-mm1 and I skipped most of those. Ahhh. Great. The patches not mentioned should not be applied corredct. > Without skip atomic overhead patch, the throughput drops by 1 to 1.5%. > > The change from slub_min_order=0 slub_max_order=4 > to slub_min_order=6 slub_max_order=7 did not make much difference in > my tests. Allright. I will then put that patch in. -- 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