Re: SLUB: Increasing partial pages
- From: Matthew Wilcox <matthew@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:16:18 -0700
On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 02:01:08PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
I sent you a mail on December 6th ... here are the contents of that
mail:
Dec 6th? I was on vacation then and it seems that I was unable to
reproduce the oopses. Can I get some backtraces or other information
that would allow me to diagnose the problem?
I'll ask to see what they have.
Applying just patches 1-7 and 9 leads to a slight (0.34%) performance
reduction compared to slub. That is 6.45% versus slab, reduces to 6.79%
with the 8 patches applied.
Patch 8 is the one that optimizes the fastpath. How much runtime
variability have these tests?
About 0.1-0.2% 0.3% is considered significant.
--
Intel are signing my paycheques ... these opinions are still mine
"Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this
operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such
a retrograde step."
--
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:
- Re: SLUB: Increasing partial pages
- From: Christoph Lameter
- Re: SLUB: Increasing partial pages
- References:
- SLUB: Increasing partial pages
- From: Matthew Wilcox
- Re: SLUB: Increasing partial pages
- From: Christoph Lameter
- Re: SLUB: Increasing partial pages
- From: Matthew Wilcox
- Re: SLUB: Increasing partial pages
- From: Christoph Lameter
- SLUB: Increasing partial pages
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] [35/36] Remove set_kernel_exec
- Next by Date: Re: [RFC on MODULE SUPPORT] hello, Rusty, Should we provide module information even if the kernel module compiled built-in with bzImage?
- Previous by thread: Re: SLUB: Increasing partial pages
- Next by thread: Re: SLUB: Increasing partial pages
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|