From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757604Ab1IHAiQ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 7 Sep 2011 20:38:16 -0400
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:42077 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1755015Ab1IHAiP (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 7 Sep 2011 20:38:15 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.68,348,1312182000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="15024964"
Subject: RE: [PATCH] slub Discard slab page only when node partials >
 minimum setting
From: "Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@intel.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux.com>
Cc: "penberg@kernel.org" <penberg@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@intel.com>,
        "Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
        "Chen, Tim C" <tim.c.chen@intel.com>,
        "linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1109071003240.9406@router.home>
References: <1315188460.31737.5.camel@debian>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1109061914440.18646@router.home>
	 <1315357399.31737.49.camel@debian>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1109062022100.20474@router.home>
	 <4E671E5C.7010405@cs.helsinki.fi>
	 <6E3BC7F7C9A4BF4286DD4C043110F30B5D00DA333C@shsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com>
	 <alpine.DEB.2.00.1109071003240.9406@router.home>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 08:43:59 +0800
Message-ID: <1315442639.31737.224.camel@debian>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 23:05 +0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Shi, Alex wrote:
> 
> > Oh, seems the deactivate_slab() corrected at linus' tree already, but
> > the unfreeze_partials() just copied from the old version
> > deactivate_slab().
> 
> Ok then the patch is ok.
> 
> Do you also have performance measurements? I am a bit hesitant to merge
> the per cpu partials patchset if there are regressions in the low
> concurrency tests as seem to be indicated by intels latest tests.
> 

My LKP testing system most focus on server platforms. I tested your per
cpu partial set on hackbench and netperf loopback benchmark. hackbench
improve much.

Maybe some IO testing is low concurrency for SLUB, maybe a few jobs
kbuild? or low swap press testing.  I may try them for your patchset in
the near days. 

BTW, some testing results for your PCP SLUB:

for hackbench process testing: 
on WSM-EP, inc ~60%, NHM-EP inc ~25%
on NHM-EX, inc ~200%, core2-EP, inc ~250%. 
on Tigerton-EX, inc 1900%, :) 

for hackbench thread testing: 
on WSM-EP, no clear inc, NHM-EP no clear inc
on NHM-EX, inc 10%, core2-EP, inc ~20%. 
on Tigertion-EX, inc 100%, 

for  netperf loopback testing, no clear performance change.