Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] slub: set a criteria for slub node partial adding | From | "Alex,Shi" <> | Date | Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:28:43 +0800 |
| |
On Fri, 2011-12-02 at 19:36 +0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le vendredi 02 décembre 2011 à 16:23 +0800, Alex Shi a écrit : > > From: Alex Shi <alexs@intel.com> > > > > Times performance regression were due to slub add to node partial head > > or tail. That inspired me to do tunning on the node partial adding, to > > set a criteria for head or tail position selection when do partial > > adding. > > My experiment show, when used objects is less than 1/4 total objects > > of slub performance will get about 1.5% improvement on netperf loopback > > testing with 2048 clients, wherever on our 4 or 2 sockets platforms, > > includes sandbridge or core2. > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Shi <alex.shi@intel.com> > > --- > > mm/slub.c | 18 ++++++++---------- > > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > netperf (loopback or ethernet) is a known stress test for slub, and your > patch removes code that might hurt netperf, but benefit real workload. > > Have you tried instead this far less intrusive solution ? > > if (tail == DEACTIVATE_TO_TAIL || > page->inuse > page->objects / 4) > list_add_tail(&page->lru, &n->partial); > else > list_add(&page->lru, &n->partial);
For loopback netperf, it has no clear performance change on all platforms. For hackbench testing, it has a bit worse on 2P NHM 0.5~1%, but it is helpful to increase about 2% on 4P(8cores * 2SMT) NHM machine.
I was thought no much cache effect on hot or cold after per cpu partial adding. but seems for hackbench, node partial still has much effect.
> > >
-- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |