On Mon, 2007-05-07 at 18:49 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2007, Tim Chen wrote:
>
> > However, the output from TCP_STREAM is quite stable.
> > I am still seeing a 4% difference between the SLAB and SLUB kernel.
> > Looking at the L2 cache miss rate with emon, I saw 6% more cache miss on
> > the client side with SLUB. The server side has the same amount of cache
> > miss. This is test under SMP mode with client and server bound to
> > different core on separate package.
>
> Could you try the following patch on top of 2.6.21-mm1 with the patches
> from http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/christoph/slub-patches?
>
> I sent it to you before. This is one is an updated version
>
>
>
> Avoid atomic overhead in slab_alloc and slab_free
>
I tried the slub-patches and the avoid atomic overhead patch against
2.6.21-mm1. It brings the TCP_STREAM performance for SLUB to the SLAB
level. The patches not mentioned in the "series" file did not apply
cleanly to 2.6.21-mm1 and I skipped most of those.
Patches applied are:
http://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/christoph/slub-
patches/series + dentry_target_reclaimed + kmem_cache_ops + slub_stats +
skip_atomic_overhead
Without skip atomic overhead patch, the throughput drops by 1 to 1.5%.
The change from slub_min_order=0 slub_max_order=4
to slub_min_order=6 slub_max_order=7 did not make much difference in
my tests.
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
