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 SMTP id 4D5576B01C1 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:42:00 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:23:01 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [S+Q 00/16] SLUB with Queueing beats SLAB in hackbench In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20100625212026.810557229@quilx.com> <20100626022441.GC29809@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Content-ID: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: Pekka Enberg , Nick Piggin , linux-mm@kvack.org, Matt Mackall , Mel Gorman , travis@sgi.com List-ID: On Mon, 28 Jun 2010, David Rientjes wrote: > In addition to that benchmark, which regresses on systems with larger > numbers of cpus, you had posted results for slub vs slab for kernbench, > aim9, and sysbench before slub was ever merged. If you're going to use > slab-like queueing in slub, it would be interesting to see if these > particular benchmarks regress once again. I do not have access to Itanium systems anymore. I hope Mike can run some benchmarks? -- 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