2012/7/5 Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx>: >> 2012/7/4 Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>> Well, can you show improvement in any benchmark or workload? >>> Prefetching is not always an obvious win and the reason we merged >>> Eric's patch was that he was able to show an improvement in hackbench. > > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 5:30 PM, JoonSoo Kim <js1304@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I thinks that this patch is perfectly same effect as Eric's patch, so >> doesn't include benchmark result. >> Eric's patch which add "prefetch instruction" in fastpath works for >> second ~ last object of cpu slab. >> This patch which add "prefetch instrunction" in slowpath works for >> first object of cpu slab. > > Prefetching can also have negative effect on overall performance: > > http://lwn.net/Articles/444336/ > Thanks for good article which is very helpful to me. > That doesn't seem like that obvious win to me... Eric, Christoph? Could you tell me how I test this patch more deeply, plz? I am a kernel newbie and in the process of learning. I doesn't know what I can do more for this. I googling previous patch related to slub, some people use netperf. Just do below is sufficient? How is this test related to slub? for in in `seq 1 32` do netperf -H 192.168.0.8 -v 0 -l -100000 -t TCP_RR > /dev/null & done wait -- 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/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>