From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F4FF6B02A3 for ; Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:20:40 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:17:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [S+Q2 00/19] SLUB with queueing (V2) beats SLAB netperf TCP_RR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20100709190706.938177313@quilx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: David Rientjes Cc: Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin List-ID: On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, David Rientjes wrote: > There are a couple differences between how you're using it compared to how > I showed the initial regression between slab and slub, however: you're > using localhost for your netserver which isn't representative of a real > networking round-robin workload and you're using a smaller system with > eight cores. We never measured a _significant_ performance problem with > slub compared to slab with four or eight cores, the problem only emerges > on larger systems. Larger systems would more NUMA support than is present in the current patches. > When running this patchset on two (client and server running > netperf-2.4.5) four 2.2GHz quad-core AMD processors with 64GB of memory, > here's the results: What is their NUMA topology? I dont have anything beyond two nodes here. -- 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