On Wed, 2011-12-14 at 10:36 +0800, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011, David Rientjes wrote:
>
> > > > {
> > > > n->nr_partial++;
> > > > - if (tail == DEACTIVATE_TO_TAIL)
> > > > - list_add_tail(&page->lru, &n->partial);
> > > > - else
> > > > - list_add(&page->lru, &n->partial);
> > > > + list_add_tail(&page->lru, &n->partial);
> > > > }
> > > >
>
> 2 machines (one netserver, one netperf) both with 16 cores, 64GB memory
> with netperf-2.4.5 comparing Linus' -git with and without this patch:
>
> threads SLUB SLUB+patch
> 16 116614 117213 (+0.5%)
> 32 216436 215065 (-0.6%)
> 48 299991 299399 (-0.2%)
> 64 373753 374617 (+0.2%)
> 80 435688 435765 (UNCH)
> 96 494630 496590 (+0.4%)
> 112 546766 546259 (-0.1%)
>
> This suggests the difference is within the noise, so this patch neither
> helps nor hurts netperf on my setup, as expected.
Thanks for the data. Real netperf is hard to give enough press on SLUB.
but as I mentioned before, I also didn't find real performance change on
my loopback netperf testing.
I retested hackbench again. about 1% performance increase still exists
on my 2 sockets SNB/WSM and 4 sockets NHM. and no performance drop for
other machines.
Christoph, what's comments you like to offer for the results or for this
code 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>