On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 08:43 +0800, Shi, Alex wrote:

On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 23:05 +0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Shi, Alex wrote:

quoted

Oh, seems the deactivate_slab() corrected at linus' tree already, but
the unfreeze_partials() just copied from the old version
deactivate_slab().

Ok then the patch is ok.

Do you also have performance measurements? I am a bit hesitant to merge
the per cpu partials patchset if there are regressions in the low
concurrency tests as seem to be indicated by intels latest tests.

My LKP testing system most focus on server platforms. I tested your per
cpu partial set on hackbench and netperf loopback benchmark. hackbench
improve much.

Maybe some IO testing is low concurrency for SLUB, maybe a few jobs
kbuild? or low swap press testing.  I may try them for your patchset in
the near days. 

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.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  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@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>