Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 21 Dec 2007 17:33:37 +0100 | From | Ingo Molnar <> | Subject | Re: Major regression on hackbench with SLUB (more numbers) |
| |
* Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > and this is not the only regression: > > > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/4/290 > > > > _6%_ TPC-C regression. That's _a lot_ in TPC-C terms. > > > > and just like in this case there were very clear profiles posted. I > > proffer, reading back the whole thread, that if you fix hackbench ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > you have fixed TPC-C as well. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > There are patches pending to address these issues. AFAICT Intel is > testing if the regression is still there. There is no way for me to > verify what is going on there and there is the constant difficulty of > getting detailed information about what is going on at Intel. Every > couple of month I get a result from that test. Its a really crappy > situation where a lot of confusing information is passed around.
of course there is a way to find out, and that's why i mailed you: fix the hackbench regression and i'm quite sure you'll improve the TPC-C numbers as well. It shows the same kind of overhead in the profile and takes just a few seconds to run. Are your pending SLUB patches in 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 already?
Ingo
| |