From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F14006B01C6 for ; Tue, 29 Jun 2010 11:55:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4C2A1755.8070201@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 08:55:01 -0700 From: Mike Travis MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [S+Q 00/16] SLUB with Queueing beats SLAB in hackbench References: <20100625212026.810557229@quilx.com> <20100626022441.GC29809@laptop> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Christoph Lameter Cc: David Rientjes , Pekka Enberg , Nick Piggin , linux-mm@kvack.org, Matt Mackall , Mel Gorman List-ID: Christoph Lameter wrote: > 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? > Sure, but I won't have a lot of time as we're pushing out the first customer UV systems and that's keeping me pretty busy. If it's all packaged up and ready to run that would help a lot. Thanks, Mike -- 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