From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161186AbXEEAdg (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 20:33:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161598AbXEEAdg (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 20:33:36 -0400 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.89]:2992 "EHLO fmsmga101.fm.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161186AbXEEAdf (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 May 2007 20:33:35 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.14,494,1170662400"; d="scan'208";a="242190454" Subject: RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark From: Tim Chen Reply-To: tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com To: Christoph Lameter 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 In-Reply-To: References: <9D2C22909C6E774EBFB8B5583AE5291C02786032@fmsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 16:41:23 -0700 Message-Id: <1178322083.23795.217.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-8) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 18:45 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > Hmmmm.. One potential issues are the complicated way the slab is > handled. Could you try this patch and see what impact it has? > The patch boost the throughput of TCP_STREAM test by 5%, for both slab and slub. But slab is still 5% better in my tests. > If it has any then remove the cachline alignment and see how that > influences things. Removing the cacheline alignment didn't change the throughput. Tim