On Thu, 4 Oct 2007, Matthew Wilcox wrote:There was quite a bit of communication on tuning parameters. Guess we got more confusion there and multiple configurations settings that I wanted to be tested separately were merged. Setting slub_min_order to more than zero can certainly be detrimental to performance since higher order page allocations can cause cacheline bouncing on zone locks. Which patches? 20070922 refers to a pull on the slab git tree on the performance branch? Please do. Add the kernel .configs please. Is there any slab queue tuning going on on boot with the SLAB configuration? Include any tuning that was done to the kernel please. If it was a git pull then the pass through was included and never taken out. Sure we can do that. Well we got our own performance test department here at SGI. If we get them involved then we can add another 3 months until we get the test results confirmed ;-). Seems that this is a small configuration. Why does it take that long? And the experts knew SLAB and not SLUB right? Lets look at all the data that you got and then see if this is enough to figure out what is wrong. -
| debian developer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| H. Peter Anvin | Re: [PATCH] x86: Construct 32 bit boot time page tables in native format. |
| Christoph Lameter | Re: [RFC 00/15] x86_64: Optimize percpu accesses |
git: | |
| Christoph Hellwig | Re: [PATCH 06/32] IGET: Mark iget() and read_inode() as being obsolete [try #2] |
| Jarek Poplawski | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| David Miller | [GIT]: Networking |
