On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Alex,Shi <alex.shi@xxxxxxxxx> 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%, :) >> > >> > 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. >> > > No, the penberg tree did include your patch on slub/partial head. > Actually PCP won't take that path, so, there is no need for your patch. > I daft a patch to remove some unused code in __slab_free, that related > this, and will send it out later. Which patch is that? Please send me it to penberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx as @kernel.org email forward isn't working. -- 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