Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:46:18 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: malloc(3) (hopefully) set for 7.0 Message-ID: <20070329204618.GA74123@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10703291340s2e58396k254f5c2671a605aa@mail.gmail.com> References: <200703281955.l2SJt7Ua086062@repoman.freebsd.org> <460AE766.6050409@frebsd.org> <eugubt$gf9$1@sea.gmane.org> <20070329203352.GA73837@xor.obsecurity.org> <3bbf2fe10703291340s2e58396k254f5c2671a605aa@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:40:53PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote: > 2007/3/29, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>: > >On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 07:51:56PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: > >> Jason Evans wrote: > >> > >> > I have developed some novel algorithms for essentially eliminating > >> > thread contention on SMP systems, but it is too late in the developm= ent > >> > cycle to introduce such changes (not to mention that I lack the=20 > >hardware > >> > to evaluate the algorithms). Thanks again for your patience and > >> > support. Please let me know if I can be of help in diagnosing=20 > >suspected > >> > malloc issues. > >> > >> First, thanks :) > >> > >> Second, as a user, I'd really like if you could manage to implement > >> those ideas before 7.0, and here's why: > >> > >> - The standard for new servers here is 4 cores (in various socket > >> arrangements), and we're not at all high-tech. This is likely to go up. > >> - If you include hyperthreading, even all *desktops* are SMPs! In shor= t, > >> even including desktops, I haven't installed a UP kernel in about a ye= ar. > >> - It's too long to wait for 8.0 for something as important as this. As > >> far as I can see, 7.0 will be one of the "break as many things as you > >> need" releases (in the "good" sense, of course), so why not go for it. > >> Judging from past releases, "even" releases (4.x, 6.x) have been the > >> ones people trusted the most, so if you do get a glitch in 7.0 it won't > >> be as bad :) (of course, you can fix it in 7.1 :) ) > >> > >> Maybe you could borrow the 8CPU machine used for MySQL / filedesc tuni= ng > >> jeffr and others have been using (of course, once they've finished...)? > > > >I will be happy to (continue to) work with Jason on testing his > >changes, but there appears to be no urgent need for this: the mysql > >benchmark specifically shows that jemalloc scales well on 8 CPUs. In > >fact, the scalability problem seen on Linux turned out to be precisely > >because of poor scaling of glibc malloc > > > > http://ozlabs.org/~anton/linux/sysbench/ >=20 > Well, I'm not sure, since this test refers to core=3D4 while your tests > were using a lot of more threads... Well, it at least fixed *a* serious problem and it looks like it was probably the main one. Jeff hasn't been available to retest it on his linux machine to see where we stand now though. Kris --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFGDCWaWry0BWjoQKURAj9GAKC0u+A1/VwaV6tqEsG4ooAhi/yACgCgi1in dcB4uYzn2lFwVJt/sv68WC4= =wr8Q -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070329204618.GA74123>