RE: [PATCH] slub Discard slab page only when node partials >minimum setting

[Shaohua Li]

On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 08:43 +0800, Shi, Alex wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 23:05 +0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Shi, Alex wrote:
> > 
> > > Oh, seems the deactivate_slab() corrected at linus' tree already, but
> > > the unfreeze_partials() just copied from the old version
> > > deactivate_slab().
> > 
> > Ok then the patch is ok.
> > 
> > Do you also have performance measurements? I am a bit hesitant to merge
> > the per cpu partials patchset if there are regressions in the low
> > concurrency tests as seem to be indicated by intels latest tests.
> > 
> 
> My LKP testing system most focus on server platforms. I tested your per
> cpu partial set on hackbench and netperf loopback benchmark. hackbench
> improve much.
> 
> Maybe some IO testing is low concurrency for SLUB, maybe a few jobs
> kbuild? or low swap press testing.  I may try them for your patchset in
> the near days. 
> 
> BTW, some testing results for your PCP SLUB:
> 
> for hackbench process testing: 
> on WSM-EP, inc ~60%, NHM-EP inc ~25%
> on NHM-EX, inc ~200%, core2-EP, inc ~250%. 
> on Tigerton-EX, inc 1900%, :) 
> 
> for hackbench thread testing: 
> on WSM-EP, no clear inc, NHM-EP no clear inc
> on NHM-EX, inc 10%, core2-EP, inc ~20%. 
> on Tigertion-EX, inc 100%, 
> 
> for  netperf loopback testing, no clear performance change. 
did you add my patch to add page to partial list tail in the test?
Without it the per-cpu partial list can have more significant impact to
reduce lock contention, so the result isn't precise.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/