Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance regression with tbench

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Christoph Lameter
Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 - 11:33 am

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, David Miller wrote:


The objects are packed tightly in SLUB and SLUB can allocate smaller 
objects (minimum is 8 SLAB mininum is 32).

On free a SLUB object goes directly back to the slab where it came from. 
We have no queues in SLUB so we use the first word of the object as a 
freepointer. In SLAB the objects first go onto queues and then are drained 
later into the slab. On free in SLAB there is usually no need to touch the 
object itself. The object pointer is simply moved onto the queue (works 
well in SMP, in NUMA we have overhead identifying the queue and 
overhead due to the number of queues needed).

-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers, Nick Piggin, (Fri Nov 9, 5:36 am)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers, Christoph Lameter, (Fri Nov 9, 8:15 am)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers, Christoph Lameter, (Fri Nov 9, 10:49 am)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance reg ..., Christoph Lameter, (Mon Nov 12, 12:44 pm)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers, Matt Mackall, (Mon Nov 12, 1:13 pm)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2 slab vs slob tbench numbers, Nick Piggin, (Tue Nov 13, 4:44 am)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance reg ..., Christoph Lameter, (Wed Nov 14, 11:33 am)
Re: 2.6.24-rc2: Network commit causes SLUB performance reg ..., Christoph Lameter, (Wed Nov 14, 6:03 pm)