From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 27 21:04:59 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6899116A40F; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:04:59 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from simon@zaphod.nitro.dk) Received: from mx.nitro.dk (zarniwoop.nitro.dk [83.92.207.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94ECD43D45; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:04:58 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from simon@zaphod.nitro.dk) Received: from zaphod.nitro.dk (unknown [192.168.3.39]) by mx.nitro.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2358386C48; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:04:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by zaphod.nitro.dk (Postfix, from userid 3000) id 9615C1141D; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:04:56 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:04:56 +0200 From: "Simon L. Nielsen" To: gnn@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20061027210455.GA1073@zaphod.nitro.dk> References: <917908193.20061027102647@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20061027103924.F79313@fledge.watson.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: Lev Serebryakov , Robert Watson , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KSE, libpthread & libthr: almost newbie question X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:04:59 -0000 On 2006.10.27 17:55:20 +0200, gnn@freebsd.org wrote: > At Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:02:59 +0100 (BST), > rwatson wrote: > > (3). One of the current theories bouncing around the kernel > > developer community is that the complexity and overhead of (2) > > outweighs many of the benefits of KSE, and that by making it an > > option, we can better evaluate the impact. Notice that this isn't > > just about code complexity, but also about scheduler overhead. > > David Xu has reported a non-trivial performance change from the > > reduced overhead of the scheduler paths. So now we're at a point > > where we can more fully evaluate the impact of KSE (since we can > > actually compile it out of the scheduler). Before anything further > > can be done, we now need to do that evaluation. > > > > And speaking of evaluation if people can follow the advice here: > > http://wikitest.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice > > It would be greatly appreciated. Note that the text copy/pasted here is actually already in our developmers handbook (and has been since shortly after phk's mail): http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook/testing.html -- Simon L. Nielsen