Re: hackbench regression since 2.6.25-rc

["Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 23:34 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> 
> > > So block 192 and 512's and very active and their fast free percentage 
> > > is low.
> > On my 8-core stoakley, there is no such regression. Below data is after testing.
> 
> Ok get the detailed statistics for this configuration as well. Then we 
> can see what kind of slub behavior changes between both configurations.
I did paste such data in a prior email. COpy it below.

On my 8-core stoakley, there is no such regression. Below data is after testing.
[root@lkp-st02-x8664 ~]# slabinfo -AD
Name                   Objects    Alloc     Free   %Fast
:0000192                  3170 80055388 80052280  92   1 
:0000512                   316 80012750 80012466  69   1 
vm_area_struct            2642   194700   192193  94  16 
:0000064                  3846    74468    70820  97  53 
:0004096                    15    69014    69012  98  97 
:0000128                  1447    32920    31541  91   8 
dentry                   13485    33060    19652  92  42 
:0000080                 10639    23377    12953  98  98 
:0000096                  1662    16496    15036  99  94 
:0000832                   232    14422    14203  85  10 
:0000016                  2733    15102    13372  99  14 

I ran it for many times and got the similiar output from slabinfo.

> 
> The 16p is really one node?
Yes. It's a SMP machine.

>  No strange variances in memory latencies? 
No.