From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Nov 26 18:09:31 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01CF516A511
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:09:31 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from freebsd-arch@m.gmane.org)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70199441DF
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:02:49 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from freebsd-arch@m.gmane.org)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
	id 1GoOKA-00004q-M2
	for freebsd-arch@freebsd.org; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:01:54 +0100
Received: from 89-172-50-96.adsl.net.t-com.hr ([89.172.50.96])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
	id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:01:54 +0100
Received: from ivoras by 89-172-50-96.adsl.net.t-com.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1
	(Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
	for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:01:54 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr>
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 19:01:44 +0100
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <ekckpt$4h6$1@sea.gmane.org>
References: <20061119041421.I16763@delplex.bde.org>	<ejnvfo$tv2$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<ek4gc8$492$1@sea.gmane.org>
	<20061126174041.V83346@fledge.watson.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 89-172-50-96.adsl.net.t-com.hr
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
In-Reply-To: <20061126174041.V83346@fledge.watson.org>
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: What is the PREEMPTION option good for?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
	<mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:09:31 -0000

Robert Watson wrote:

> There's a known performance regression with PREEMPTION and loopback
> network traffic on UP or UP-like systems due to a poor series of context
> switches occuring in the network stack.  If your benchmark involves the
> above web load over the loopback, that could be the source of what
> you're seeing.  If it's not loopback traffic, then that's not the source
> of the problem.

The dynamic stuff is accessing the database (fairly intensively) over
the loopback.

> You might try fiddling with kern.sched.ipiwakeup.enabled and see what
> the effect is, btw -- this controls whether or not the scheduler wakes
> up another idle CPU to run a thread when waking up that thread, rather
> than queuing it to run which may occur on the other CPU at the next
> clock tick.

Try this with or without PREEMPTION?