On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 03:45 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 5 Sep 2007, Zhang, Yanmin wrote: > > > > > However, the approach treats the slabs in the same policy. Could we > > > > implement a per-slab specific approach like direct b)? > > > > > > I am not sure what you mean by same policy. Same configuration for all > > > slabs? > > Yes. > > Ok. I could add the ability to specify parameters for some slabs. Thanks. That will be more flexible.
> > > > Would it be possible to try the two other approaches that I suggested? I > > > think both of those may also solve the issue. Try booting with > > > slab_max_order=0 > > 1) I tried slab_max_order=0 and the regression becomes 12.5%. It's still > > not good. > > > > 2) I apllied patch > > slub-direct-pass-through-of-page-size-or-higher-kmalloc.patch to kernel > > 2.6.23-rc4. The new testing result is much better, only 1% less than > > 2.6.22. I retested 2.6.22 and booted kernel with "slub_max_order=3 slub_min_objects=8". The result is about 8.7% better than without booting parameters. So all with booting parameter "slub_max_order=3 slub_min_objects=8", 2.6.22 is about 5.8% better than 2.6.23-rc4. I suspect process scheduler is responsible for the 5.8% regressions. > > Ok. That seems to indicate that we should improve the alloc path in the > page allocator. The page allocator performance needs to be competitive on > page sized allocations. The problem will be largely going away when we > merge the pass through patch in 2.6.24. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
