On Fri, 2011-09-09 at 02:37 +0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Thu, 8 Sep 2011, Alex,Shi wrote: > > > 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%, :) > > There is no minus on tigerton. I hope that is not a regression? Sorry for incorrect usage of '~'. I want use the '~60%' to express performance increased 'about' 60%, not '-60%'. This usage is unusual in English. > > > > 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. > > Hmmm... The sizes of the per cpu partial objects could be varied a bit to > see if more would make an impact. I find almost in one time my kbuilding. size 384, was alloced in fastpath about 2900k times size 176, was alloced in fastpath about 1900k times size 192, was alloced in fastpath about 500k times anon_vma, was alloced in fastpath about 560k times size 72, was alloced in fastpath about 600k times size 512, 256, 128, was alloced in fastpath about more than 100k for each of them. I may give you objects size involved in my netperf testing later. and which test case do you prefer to? If I have, I may collection data on them. -- 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>