From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753098AbXCMC0U (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:26:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753105AbXCMC0U (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:26:20 -0400 Received: from 74-93-104-97-Washington.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([74.93.104.97]:40155 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753102AbXCMC0S (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Mar 2007 22:26:18 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 19:26:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20070312.192616.63128242.davem@davemloft.net> To: paulus@samba.org Cc: clameter@sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ak@suse.com, holt@sgi.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, mpm@selenic.com Subject: Re: [QUICKLIST 0/6] Arch independent quicklists V1 From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <17909.62028.117035.287313@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> References: <20070311020923.19905.49260.sendpatchset@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com> <20070312.155157.74747634.davem@davemloft.net> <17909.62028.117035.287313@cargo.ozlabs.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 5.1.52 on Emacs 21.4 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Paul Mackerras Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:37:32 +1100 > David Miller writes: > > > I ported this to sparc64 as per the patch below, tested on > > UP SunBlade1500 and 24 cpu Niagara T1000. > > Did you see any performance improvement? We used to have quicklists > on ppc, but I remain to be convinced that they actually help. It shaved about 3 or 4 seconds consistently off of my kernel build on Niagara which usually clocks in just over 4 minutes on this 24 thread machine. > Also, I didn't understand why we have to do quicklists to take > advantage of the fact that the pages are in a pristine state when they > are freed. I thought the whole point of the slab allocator was to be > able to take advantage of that... He just wants to side-step the issue in SLUB, which arguably is an attempt to simplify SLUB at the expense of functionality. I don't agree with that, but I'm merely preemptively testing his patches and porting them to sparc64 so it does not break when/if his code is merged in. After being bitten by stuff like this in the past, I've decided to become more proactive :)