Yes, I agree that it is not related to the changes.
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Christoph Lameter <c...@linux.com> wrote: > 0.On Wed, 18 May 2016, Thomas Garnier wrote: > >> slab_test, before: >> 10000 times kmalloc(8) -> 67 cycles kfree -> 101 cycles >> 10000 times kmalloc(16) -> 68 cycles kfree -> 109 cycles >> 10000 times kmalloc(32) -> 76 cycles kfree -> 119 cycles >> 10000 times kmalloc(64) -> 88 cycles kfree -> 114 cycles > >> After: >> 10000 times kmalloc(8) -> 60 cycles kfree -> 74 cycles >> 10000 times kmalloc(16) -> 63 cycles kfree -> 78 cycles >> 10000 times kmalloc(32) -> 72 cycles kfree -> 85 cycles >> 10000 times kmalloc(64) -> 91 cycles kfree -> 99 cycles > > Erm... The fastpath was not touched and the tests primarily exercise the > fastpath. This is likely some artifact of code placement by the compiler? >
