Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench
- From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:41:58 +1100
On Tuesday 13 November 2007 06:44, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
BTW. your size-2048 kmalloc cache is order-1 in the default setup,
wheras kmalloc(1024) or kmalloc(4096) will be order-0 allocations. And
SLAB also uses order-0 for size-2048. It would be nice if SLUB did the
same...
You can try to see the effect that order 0 would have by booting with
slub_max_order=0
Yeah, that didn't help much, but in general I think it would give
more consistent and reliable behaviour from slub.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- 2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers
- From: Nick Piggin
- Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench
- From: Nick Piggin
- Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench
- From: Christoph Lameter
- 2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 22/54] kset: convert /sys/devices/system to use kset_create
- Next by Date: uml doesn't work on 2.6.24-rc2
- Previous by thread: Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench
- Next by thread: Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
