On Fri, 2007-05-04 at 16:59 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > to run the tests. The results are about the same as the non-NUMA case, > > with slab about 5% better than slub. > > Hmmmm... both tests were run in the same context? NUMA has additional > overhead in other areas. Both slab and slub tests are tested with the same NUMA options and config. Tim - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
- References:
- RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
- From: "Chen, Tim C" <[email protected]>
- RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
- From: Tim Chen <[email protected]>
- RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
- From: Tim Chen <[email protected]>
- RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
- Prev by Date: RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
- Next by Date: Re: mkfs.ext2 triggerd RAM corruption
- Previous by thread: RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
- Next by thread: RE: Regression with SLUB on Netperf and Volanomark
- Index(es):
 |