On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > slub_max_order=3 slub_min_objects=8 > I tried this approach. The testing result showed 2.6.23-rc4 is about > 2.5% better than 2.6.22. It really resovles the issue. Note also that the configuration you tried is the way SLUB is configured in Andrew's tree. - 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:
- References:
- tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario?
- From: "Zhang, Yanmin" <[email protected]>
- Re: tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario?
- From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
- Re: tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario?
- From: "Zhang, Yanmin" <[email protected]>
- tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario?
- Prev by Date: Re: tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario?
- Next by Date: [PATCH] [AGPGART] intel_agp: fix stolen mem range on G33
- Previous by thread: Re: tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario?
- Next by thread: Re: tbench regression - Why process scheduler has impact on tbench and why small per-cpu slab (SLUB) cache creates the scenario?
- Index(es):
 |