2012/7/5 Pekka Enberg <penberg@xxxxxxxxxx>: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 6:45 PM, JoonSoo Kim <js1304@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> 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 > > The networking subsystem is sensitive to slab allocator performance > which makes netperf an interesting benchmark, that's all. > > As for slab benchmarking, you might want to look at what Mel Gorman > has done in the past: > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/2/16/252 > > For something like prefetch optimization, you'd really want to see a > noticeable win in some benchmark. The kind of improvement you're > seeing with your patch is likely to be lost in the noise - or even > worse, cause negative performance for real world workloads. Okay. Thanks for comments. -- 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>