[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch] SLQB slab allocator (try 2)
Hi Mel,

Mel Gorman wrote:
> I haven't done much digging in here yet. Between the large page bug and
> other patches in my inbox, I haven't had the chance yet but that doesn't
> stop anyone else taking a look.

So how big does an improvement/regression have to be not to be
considered within noise? I mean, I randomly picked one of the results
("x86-64 speccpu integer tests") and ran it through my "summarize"
script and got the following results:

min max mean std_dev
slub 0.96 1.09 1.01 0.04
slub-min 0.95 1.10 1.00 0.04
slub-rvrt 0.90 1.08 0.99 0.05
slqb 0.96 1.07 1.00 0.04

Apart from slub-rvrt (which seems to be regressing, interesting) all the
allocators seem to perform equally well. Hmm?

Btw, Yanmin, do you have access to the tests Mel is running (especially
the ones where slub-rvrt seems to do worse)? Can you see this kind of
regression? The results make we wonder whether we should avoid reverting
all of the page allocator pass-through and just add a kmalloc cache for
8K allocations. Or not address the netperf regression at all. Double-hmm.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-18 12:23    [W:0.113 / U:3.996 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site