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

On Tuesday 13 November 2007 06:44, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> 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

Yeah, that didn't help much, but in general I think it would give
more consistent and reliable behaviour from slub.
-
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: David Miller <[email protected]>

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

• Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH 22/54] kset: convert /sys/devices/system to use kset_create
• Next by Date: uml doesn't work on 2.6.24-rc2
• 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]