On Fri, 21 Dec 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > There are patches pending to address these issues. AFAICT Intel is > > testing if the regression is still there. There is no way for me to > > verify what is going on there and there is the constant difficulty of > > getting detailed information about what is going on at Intel. Every > > couple of month I get a result from that test. Its a really crappy > > situation where a lot of confusing information is passed around. > > of course there is a way to find out, and that's why i mailed you: fix > the hackbench regression and i'm quite sure you'll improve the TPC-C > numbers as well. It shows the same kind of overhead in the profile and > takes just a few seconds to run. Are your pending SLUB patches in > 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 already?
The tests that I wrote emulate the test behavior that was described to me by me. The fixes in 2.6.24-rc5-mm1 improved those numbers. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/27/245 which I quoted earlier to you. However, I have no TPC-C setup here and from what I hear it takes weeks to run and requires a large support team for tuning. You can find the slab test suite for that at http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/christoph/vm.git;a=shortlog;h=tests AFAICT the fixes in 2.6.25-rc5-mm1 result in double the alloc performance (fastpath) of SLAB. There are fixes that are not merged yet (the cpu alloc patchset) that seem to make that factor 3 because we can use the segment register to avoid per cpu array lookups in the fast path. -- 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/