From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S934685Ab0GOUUr (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:20:47 -0400 Received: from nlpi129.sbcis.sbc.com ([207.115.36.143]:53975 "EHLO nlpi129.prodigy.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934651Ab0GOUUq (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Jul 2010 16:20:46 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2010 15:17:23 -0500 (CDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: cl@router.home To: David Rientjes cc: Pekka Enberg , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [S+Q2 00/19] SLUB with queueing (V2) beats SLAB netperf TCP_RR In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20100709190706.938177313@quilx.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, David Rientjes wrote: > There are a couple differences between how you're using it compared to how > I showed the initial regression between slab and slub, however: you're > using localhost for your netserver which isn't representative of a real > networking round-robin workload and you're using a smaller system with > eight cores. We never measured a _significant_ performance problem with > slub compared to slab with four or eight cores, the problem only emerges > on larger systems. Larger systems would more NUMA support than is present in the current patches. > When running this patchset on two (client and server running > netperf-2.4.5) four 2.2GHz quad-core AMD processors with 64GB of memory, > here's the results: What is their NUMA topology? I dont have anything beyond two nodes here.