Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

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
-
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: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

• References:
  • 2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench
    • From: Christoph Lameter <[email protected]>
  • Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench
    • From: Nick Piggin <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH] USB: power-management.txt - disconnect clarification
• Next by Date: Re: Strage buffer behaviour
• 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):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]