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. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>