From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 7 15:21:07 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A1C416A41F for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:21:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from multiplay.co.uk (core6.multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7634943D45 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:21:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from vader ([212.135.219.179]) by multiplay.co.uk (multiplay.co.uk [85.236.96.23]) (MDaemon.PRO.v8.1.3.R) with ESMTP id md50001990839.msg for ; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:19:51 +0000 Message-ID: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:19:45 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670 X-Spam-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:19:51 +0000 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-MDRemoteIP: 212.135.219.179 X-Return-Path: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-MDAV-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:19:53 +0000 Subject: Multi CPU support in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:21:07 -0000 I believe previously smp support in FreeBSD has been limited to smaller numbers of CPU's, we've got the opportunity to test an 8 way dual core ( 16 cpu's ) this week, is 6.0 up to this? Does anyone have any experience with a machine of this size? Steve ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk. From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 7 15:27:30 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60F8D16A41F for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:27:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from roberto@keltia.freenix.fr) Received: from tara.freenix.org (keltia.freenix.org [82.224.56.155]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AAE943D7B for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 15:27:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from roberto@keltia.freenix.fr) Received: by tara.freenix.org (Postfix/TLS, from userid 101) id 08F192ABA; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:27:19 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:27:18 +0100 From: Ollivier Robert To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org References: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> X-Operating-System: MacOS X / PowerBook G4 - FreeBSD 5.0 / 2x PIII/800 SMP User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Subject: Re: Multi CPU support in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:27:30 -0000 According to Steven Hartland: > I believe previously smp support in FreeBSD has been limited > to smaller numbers of CPU's, we've got the opportunity to test > an 8 way dual core ( 16 cpu's ) this week, is 6.0 up to this? I recall seeing someone on IRC saying they had a 14 CPU machine (Sparc64 E4500) to play with so I think it should be ok. -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr Darwin snuadh.freenix.org Kernel Version 7.9.0: Wed Mar 30 20:11:17 PST 2005 From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 7 16:16:00 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCE2516A41F for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:16:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ap@bnc.net) Received: from mailomat.net (mailomat.net [217.110.117.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BFBA43D53 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:15:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from ap@bnc.net) X-BNC-SpamCatcher-Score: 2 [X] Received: from [194.39.192.125] (account bnc-mail@mailrelay.mailomat.net HELO bnc.net) by mailomat.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.6) with ESMTPSA id 5828636; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:15:54 +0100 Received: from [194.39.192.154] (account ap HELO [194.39.192.154]) by bnc.net (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.5) with ESMTPSA id 1342063; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:15:53 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> References: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Achim Patzner Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:15:55 +0100 To: Ollivier Robert X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multi CPU support in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:16:00 -0000 Am 07.11.2005 um 16:27 schrieb Ollivier Robert: > According to Steven Hartland: >> I believe previously smp support in FreeBSD has been limited >> to smaller numbers of CPU's, we've got the opportunity to test >> an 8 way dual core ( 16 cpu's ) this week, is 6.0 up to this? > > I recall seeing someone on IRC saying they had a 14 CPU machine > (Sparc64 > E4500) to play with so I think it should be ok. I remember someone writing that the intermediate state of -CURRENT while removing the giant lock around the kernel wasn't viable with more than four CPUs as it would completely deadlock from time to time. I guess we're a bit further down the road... Achim From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 7 17:19:37 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F92516A41F for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:19:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from speedfactory.net (mail5.speedfactory.net [66.23.216.218]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5AD143D46 for ; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:19:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (unverified [66.23.211.162]) by speedfactory.net (SurgeMail 3.5b3) with ESMTP id 1526909 for multiple; Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:21:39 -0500 Received: from localhost.baldwin.cx (john@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jA7HJQQM011800; Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:19:32 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:44:36 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> In-Reply-To: <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200511071144.36915.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on server.baldwin.cx X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com r=1653887525 Cc: Subject: Re: Multi CPU support in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:19:37 -0000 On Monday 07 November 2005 11:15 am, Achim Patzner wrote: > Am 07.11.2005 um 16:27 schrieb Ollivier Robert: > > According to Steven Hartland: > >> I believe previously smp support in FreeBSD has been limited > >> to smaller numbers of CPU's, we've got the opportunity to test > >> an 8 way dual core ( 16 cpu's ) this week, is 6.0 up to this? > > > > I recall seeing someone on IRC saying they had a 14 CPU machine > > (Sparc64 > > E4500) to play with so I think it should be ok. > > I remember someone writing that the intermediate state of -CURRENT > while removing the giant lock around the kernel wasn't viable with > more than four CPUs as it would completely deadlock from time to > time. I guess we're a bit further down the road... That might still be the case but it doesn't seem to have triggered on the 14-CPU sparc. FreeBSD/i386 and FreeBSD/amd64 both support up to 16 CPUs (counting hyperthreads, so a 4-package box with dual cores that each have 2 hyperthreads should recognize all 16 cpus). -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" = http://www.FreeBSD.org From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 8 16:45:22 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1C6916A41F for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 16:45:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 992D643D45 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 16:45:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77C7F1A3C27; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 08:45:22 -0800 (PST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 997CD51305; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:45:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:45:20 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway To: Achim Patzner Message-ID: <20051108164520.GA81940@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multi CPU support in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 16:45:23 -0000 --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 05:15:55PM +0100, Achim Patzner wrote: >=20 > Am 07.11.2005 um 16:27 schrieb Ollivier Robert: >=20 > >According to Steven Hartland: > >>I believe previously smp support in FreeBSD has been limited > >>to smaller numbers of CPU's, we've got the opportunity to test > >>an 8 way dual core ( 16 cpu's ) this week, is 6.0 up to this? > > > >I recall seeing someone on IRC saying they had a 14 CPU machine =20 > >(Sparc64 > >E4500) to play with so I think it should be ok. That would be me (machine courtesy of hrs@). He also donated a 12- and 10- CPU version, all of which I use for package building and SMP performance testing. These machines have been invaluable for testing and improving FreeBSD on SMP, and have caused innumerable bugs to be found and fixed. > I remember someone writing that the intermediate state of -CURRENT =20 > while removing the giant lock around the kernel wasn't viable with =20 > more than four CPUs as it would completely deadlock from time to =20 > time. I guess we're a bit further down the road... That certainly seems to be the case. You want to use FreeBSD 6.0, which has excellent performance and stability on SMP in my testing, even with 14 CPUs. FreeBSD 5.4 is definitely not up to it, since VFS is under Giant. Kris --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDcNYeWry0BWjoQKURAgYuAKClUIDo7WDG5o884P4fNKK8WwCmawCfZY8d 8Xot7V2TNcJ8JbvMmEJqTKk= =onjs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ikeVEW9yuYc//A+q-- From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 8 17:47:50 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D752816A41F for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:47:50 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from david@landgren.net) Received: from smtp9.wanadoo.fr (smtp9.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27B8943D4C for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:47:49 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from david@landgren.net) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0906.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 289941C001B4 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:47:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.11.12.1] (ASt-Lambert-151-1-63-52.w83-199.abo.wanadoo.fr [83.199.125.52]) by mwinf0906.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id F1F731C001BA for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:47:47 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20051108174747991.F1F731C001BA@mwinf0906.wanadoo.fr Message-ID: <4370E4C3.5000204@landgren.net> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:47:47 +0100 From: David Landgren Organization: The Dusty Decadent Delights of Imperial Pompeii User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, fr-fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org References: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> <20051108164520.GA81940@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20051108164520.GA81940@xor.obsecurity.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Multi CPU support in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:47:51 -0000 And Kris Kennaway did write: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 05:15:55PM +0100, Achim Patzner wrote: > >>Am 07.11.2005 um 16:27 schrieb Ollivier Robert: >> [...] >>I remember someone writing that the intermediate state of -CURRENT >>while removing the giant lock around the kernel wasn't viable with >>more than four CPUs as it would completely deadlock from time to >>time. I guess we're a bit further down the road... > > > That certainly seems to be the case. You want to use FreeBSD 6.0, > which has excellent performance and stability on SMP in my testing, > even with 14 CPUs. FreeBSD 5.4 is definitely not up to it, since VFS > is under Giant. Well I'm going to take the plunge and bring an HP Netserver LT 6000 with 6 CPUs up from 5.4-STABLE to 6. Are there any obvious additions or subtractions from a 5.x kernel configuration file? Is ADAPTIVE_GIANT now obsolete? Thanks for the tips, David From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 8 17:52:05 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E52F16A420 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:52:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB4B343D46 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:52:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE2981A3C27; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 09:52:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0A23E514DF; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:52:04 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 12:52:03 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway To: David Landgren Message-ID: <20051108175203.GA7472@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> <20051108164520.GA81940@xor.obsecurity.org> <4370E4C3.5000204@landgren.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="+QahgC5+KEYLbs62" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4370E4C3.5000204@landgren.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multi CPU support in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:52:05 -0000 --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:47:47PM +0100, David Landgren wrote: > And Kris Kennaway did write: >=20 > >On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 05:15:55PM +0100, Achim Patzner wrote: > > > >>Am 07.11.2005 um 16:27 schrieb Ollivier Robert: > >> >=20 > [...] >=20 > >>I remember someone writing that the intermediate state of -CURRENT =20 > >>while removing the giant lock around the kernel wasn't viable with =20 > >>more than four CPUs as it would completely deadlock from time to =20 > >>time. I guess we're a bit further down the road... > > > > > >That certainly seems to be the case. You want to use FreeBSD 6.0, > >which has excellent performance and stability on SMP in my testing, > >even with 14 CPUs. FreeBSD 5.4 is definitely not up to it, since VFS > >is under Giant. >=20 > Well I'm going to take the plunge and bring an HP Netserver LT 6000 with= =20 > 6 CPUs up from 5.4-STABLE to 6. >=20 > Are there any obvious additions or subtractions from a 5.x kernel=20 > configuration file? Is ADAPTIVE_GIANT now obsolete? I think you still want it - it was a net win the last time I measured it. That's it though, really. Kris --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDcOXDWry0BWjoQKURApfGAKDnPQIzdmj1qY252sKPY3iPBaM6bgCeJ13x H3S0WJI/O7laZL7v3rVORSk= =x5P0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --+QahgC5+KEYLbs62-- From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 8 17:59:20 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4919E16A41F for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:59:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from david@landgren.net) Received: from smtp2.wanadoo.fr (smtp2.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.29]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BACD443D46 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 17:59:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from david@landgren.net) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf0208.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 41E7D1C0024B for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:59:17 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.11.12.1] (ASt-Lambert-151-1-63-52.w83-199.abo.wanadoo.fr [83.199.125.52]) by mwinf0208.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id DB07A1C002CE for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:59:16 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20051108175916897.DB07A1C002CE@mwinf0208.wanadoo.fr Message-ID: <4370E774.2080004@landgren.net> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:59:16 +0100 From: David Landgren Organization: The Dusty Decadent Delights of Imperial Pompeii User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, fr-fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org References: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> <20051108164520.GA81940@xor.obsecurity.org> <4370E4C3.5000204@landgren.net> <20051108175203.GA7472@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20051108175203.GA7472@xor.obsecurity.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Multi CPU support in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:59:20 -0000 And Kris Kennaway did write: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:47:47PM +0100, David Landgren wrote: [...] >>Are there any obvious additions or subtractions from a 5.x kernel >>configuration file? Is ADAPTIVE_GIANT now obsolete? > > > I think you still want it - it was a net win the last time I measured > it. That's it though, really. Thanks for the quick response. So, I'll leave that in. I've diffed GENERIC and my current config, and I see two new items to add: options PREEMPTIONpreemption options COMPAT_FREEBSD5 Once I've rebuilt all ports, I could remove COMPAT_FREEBSD5 on a second rebuild, right? I assume pf and ALTQ traffic shaping remain the same? That's about the only other difference to my kernel. device pf device pflog device pfsync > Kris Thanks for this, and all your work. David From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 8 19:03:33 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A6BD16A420 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:03:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DA8343D48 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 19:03:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kris@obsecurity.org) Received: from obsecurity.dyndns.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06ADC1A3C26; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 11:03:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by obsecurity.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A5D3551E6A; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:03:28 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 14:03:28 -0500 From: Kris Kennaway To: David Landgren Message-ID: <20051108190327.GA24711@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> <20051108164520.GA81940@xor.obsecurity.org> <4370E4C3.5000204@landgren.net> <20051108175203.GA7472@xor.obsecurity.org> <4370E774.2080004@landgren.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4370E774.2080004@landgren.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multi CPU support in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 19:03:33 -0000 --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:59:16PM +0100, David Landgren wrote: > And Kris Kennaway did write: >=20 > >On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:47:47PM +0100, David Landgren wrote: >=20 > [...] >=20 > >>Are there any obvious additions or subtractions from a 5.x kernel=20 > >>configuration file? Is ADAPTIVE_GIANT now obsolete? > > > > > >I think you still want it - it was a net win the last time I measured > >it. That's it though, really. >=20 > Thanks for the quick response. So, I'll leave that in. >=20 > I've diffed GENERIC and my current config, and I see two new items to add: >=20 > options PREEMPTIONpreemption PREEMPTION, not PREEMPTIONpreemption :) > options COMPAT_FREEBSD5 >=20 > Once I've rebuilt all ports, I could remove COMPAT_FREEBSD5 on a second= =20 > rebuild, right? In principle, yes, unless you're using some ports (or third party binaries) that install 5.x binaries. > I assume pf and ALTQ traffic shaping remain the same? That's about the=20 > only other difference to my kernel. I don't use pf myself, but there should be no reason for it not to work. Kris --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDcPZ1Wry0BWjoQKURAsFHAKDJmOKygXdD5q+VSy3kzBYRALxCSACbB7yZ BZHmIci4/x5RuWRI50EmAr4= =OLPa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --EeQfGwPcQSOJBaQU-- From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 8 20:54:01 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED1216A420 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 20:54:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from a50.ironport.com (a50.ironport.com [63.251.108.112]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E48F743D45 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 20:54:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from unknown (HELO [10.251.23.117]) ([10.251.23.117]) by a50.ironport.com with ESMTP; 08 Nov 2005 12:54:00 -0800 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true Message-ID: <43711067.2010500@elischer.org> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:53:59 -0800 From: Julian Elischer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050727 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Landgren References: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> <20051108164520.GA81940@xor.obsecurity.org> <4370E4C3.5000204@landgren.net> In-Reply-To: <4370E4C3.5000204@landgren.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multi CPU support in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:54:01 -0000 David Landgren wrote: > And Kris Kennaway did write: > >> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 05:15:55PM +0100, Achim Patzner wrote: >> >>> Am 07.11.2005 um 16:27 schrieb Ollivier Robert: >>> > > [...] > >>> I remember someone writing that the intermediate state of -CURRENT >>> while removing the giant lock around the kernel wasn't viable with >>> more than four CPUs as it would completely deadlock from time to >>> time. I guess we're a bit further down the road... >> >> >> >> That certainly seems to be the case. You want to use FreeBSD 6.0, >> which has excellent performance and stability on SMP in my testing, >> even with 14 CPUs. FreeBSD 5.4 is definitely not up to it, since VFS >> is under Giant. > > > Well I'm going to take the plunge and bring an HP Netserver LT 6000 > with 6 CPUs up from 5.4-STABLE to 6. do some benchmarks before and after :-) > > Are there any obvious additions or subtractions from a 5.x kernel > configuration file? Is ADAPTIVE_GIANT now obsolete? > > Thanks for the tips, > David > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-smp@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-smp > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-smp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 8 22:20:56 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6739116A41F for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 22:20:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from david@landgren.net) Received: from smtp12.wanadoo.fr (smtp12.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.20]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C643F43D4C for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 22:20:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from david@landgren.net) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1201.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 192531C00098 for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 23:20:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from [10.11.12.1] (ASt-Lambert-151-1-63-52.w83-199.abo.wanadoo.fr [83.199.125.52]) by mwinf1201.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id E0FD21C0008F for ; Tue, 8 Nov 2005 23:20:53 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20051108222053921.E0FD21C0008F@mwinf1201.wanadoo.fr Message-ID: <437124C5.7050008@landgren.net> Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 23:20:53 +0100 From: David Landgren Organization: The Dusty Decadent Delights of Imperial Pompeii User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; fr; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, fr-fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org References: <01d301c5e3ae$b2461840$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> <20051107152718.GA4743@tara.freenix.org> <10EFEEF4-D1D4-45FC-991C-60A4E60FB391@bnc.net> <20051108164520.GA81940@xor.obsecurity.org> <4370E4C3.5000204@landgren.net> <43711067.2010500@elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <43711067.2010500@elischer.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Multi CPU support in 6.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 22:20:56 -0000 And Julian Elischer did write: > David Landgren wrote: > >> And Kris Kennaway did write: >> >>> On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 05:15:55PM +0100, Achim Patzner wrote: >>> >>>> Am 07.11.2005 um 16:27 schrieb Ollivier Robert: >>>> >> >> [...] >> >>>> I remember someone writing that the intermediate state of -CURRENT >>>> while removing the giant lock around the kernel wasn't viable with >>>> more than four CPUs as it would completely deadlock from time to >>>> time. I guess we're a bit further down the road... >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> That certainly seems to be the case. You want to use FreeBSD 6.0, >>> which has excellent performance and stability on SMP in my testing, >>> even with 14 CPUs. FreeBSD 5.4 is definitely not up to it, since VFS >>> is under Giant. >> >> >> >> Well I'm going to take the plunge and bring an HP Netserver LT 6000 >> with 6 CPUs up from 5.4-STABLE to 6. > > > > do some benchmarks before and after :-) Ah... wise words. I'll try a couple of things out then. Thanks, David