Re: hackbench regression due to commit 9dfc6e68bfe6e

[Zhang, Yanmin]

On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 10:53 -0500, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> 
> > I suspect the moving of place of cpu_slab in kmem_cache causes the new cache
> > miss. But when I move it to the tail of the structure, kernel always panic when
> > booting. Perhaps there is another potential bug?
> 
> Why would that cause an additional cache miss?
> 
> 
> The node array is following at the end of the structure. If you want to
> move it down then it needs to be placed before the node field

Thanks. The moving cpu_slab to tail doesn't improve it. 

I used perf to collect statistics. Only data cache miss has a little difference.
My testing command on my 2 socket machine:
#hackbench 100 process 20000

With 2.6.33, it takes for about 96 seconds while 2.6.34-rc2 (or the latest tip tree)
takes for about 101 seconds.

perf shows some functions around SLUB have more cpu utilization, while some other
SLUB functions have less cpu utilization.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/