Re: hackbench regression since 2.6.25-rc

[Christoph Lameter]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:

> > Ahhh... Okay those slabs did not change for 2.6.25-rc. Is there
> > really a difference to 2.6.24?
> As oprofile shows slub functions spend more than 80% cpu time, I would like
> to focus on optimizing SLUB before going back to 2.6.24.

I thought you wanted to address a regression vs 2.6.24?

> kmalloc-512: No NUMA information available.
> 
> Slab Perf Counter       Alloc     Free %Al %Fr
> --------------------------------------------------
> Fastpath             55039159  5006829  68   6
> Slowpath             24975754 75007769  31  93
> Page Alloc              73840    73779   0   0
> Add partial                 0 24341085   0  30
> Remove partial       24267297    73779  30   0

^^^ add partial/remove partial is likely the cause for 
trouble here. 30% is unacceptably high. The larger allocs will reduce the 
partial handling overhead. That is likely the effect that we see here.

> Refill 24975738

Duh refills at 50%? We could try to just switch to another slab instead of 
reusing the existing one. May also affect the add/remove partial 
situation.



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/