Re: Major regression on hackbench with SLUB (more numbers)

[Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>]

* Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> > and this is not the only regression:
> > 
> >     http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/4/290
> > 
> > _6%_ TPC-C regression. That's _a lot_ in TPC-C terms.
> > 
> > and just like in this case there were very clear profiles posted. I 
> > proffer, reading back the whole thread, that if you fix hackbench 
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > you have fixed TPC-C as well.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> There are patches pending to address these issues. AFAICT Intel is 
> testing if the regression is still there. There is no way for me to 
> verify what is going on there and there is the constant difficulty of 
> getting detailed information about what is going on at Intel. Every 
> couple of month I get a result from that test. Its a really crappy 
> situation where a lot of confusing information is passed around.

of course there is a way to find out, and that's why i mailed you: fix 
the hackbench regression and i'm quite sure you'll improve the TPC-C 
numbers as well. It shows the same kind of overhead in the profile and 
takes just a few seconds to run. Are your pending SLUB patches in 
2.6.24-rc5-mm1 already?

	Ingo