On Saturday 17 January 2009 05:11:02 Rick Jones wrote: > Nick Piggin wrote: > > OK, I have these numbers to show I'm not completely off my rocker to > > suggest we merge SLQB :) Given these results, how about I ask to merge > > SLQB as default in linux-next, then if nothing catastrophic happens, > > merge it upstream in the next merge window, then a couple of releases > > after that, given some time to test and tweak SLQB, then we plan to bite > > the bullet and emerge with just one main slab allocator (plus SLOB). > > > > > > System is a 2socket, 4 core AMD. > > Not exactly a large system :) Barely NUMA even with just two sockets. You're right ;) But at least it is exercising the NUMA paths in the allocator, and represents a pretty common size of system... I can run some tests on bigger systems at SUSE, but it is not always easy to set up "real" meaningful workloads on them or configure significant IO for them. > > Netperf UDP unidirectional send test (10 runs, higher better): > > > > Server and client bound to same CPU > > SLAB AVG=60.111 STD=1.59382 > > SLQB AVG=60.167 STD=0.685347 > > SLUB AVG=58.277 STD=0.788328 > > > > Server and client bound to same socket, different CPUs > > SLAB AVG=85.938 STD=0.875794 > > SLQB AVG=93.662 STD=2.07434 > > SLUB AVG=81.983 STD=0.864362 > > > > Server and client bound to different sockets > > SLAB AVG=78.801 STD=1.44118 > > SLQB AVG=78.269 STD=1.10457 > > SLUB AVG=71.334 STD=1.16809 > > > > ... > > > > I haven't done any non-local network tests. Networking is the one of the > > subsystems most heavily dependent on slab performance, so if anybody > > cares to run their favourite tests, that would be really helpful. > > I'm guessing, but then are these Mbit/s figures? Would that be the sending > throughput or the receiving throughput? Yes, Mbit/s. They were... hmm, sending throughput I think, but each pair of numbers seemed to be identical IIRC? > I love to see netperf used, but why UDP and loopback? No really good reason. I guess I was hoping to keep other variables as small as possible. But I guess a real remote test would be a lot more realistic as a networking test. Hmm, but I could probably set up a test over a simple GbE link here. I'll try that. > Also, how about the > service demands? Well, over loopback and using CPU binding, I was hoping it wouldn't change much... but I see netperf does some measurements for you. I will consider those in future too. BTW. is it possible to do parallel netperf tests? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
