Re: [Bug #15713] hackbench regression due to commit 9dfc6e68bfe6e

[Pekka Enberg]

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Zhang, Yanmin
<yanmin_zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> I haven't been able to reproduce this either on my Core 2 machine.
>>> Mostly, the regression exists on Nehalem machines. I suspect it's related to
>>> hyper-threading machine.

On 04/26/2010 09:22 AM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>> OK, so does anyone know why hyper-threading would change things for
>> the per-CPU allocator?

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My wild speculation is that previously the cpu_slub structures of two
> neighboring threads ended up on the same cacheline by accident thanks
> to the back to back allocation.  W/ the percpu allocator, this no
> longer would happen as the allocator groups percpu data together
> per-cpu.

Yanmin, do we see a lot of remote frees for your hackbench run? IIRC,
it's the "deactivate_remote_frees" stat when CONFIG_SLAB_STATS is
enabled.

                        Pekka
--
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/