Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 10:14:37 -0800 From: Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] calloutng Message-ID: <CACYV=-GP=mFTTLAbgSweUzwsdcau4N_qyF2L=CvrBBDGrA65RQ@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmonPu_9Psaha5aWXcukmjrr8yyU-PgY85Cnurzg-6JH3QQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <50CCAB99.4040308@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-VmonPu_9Psaha5aWXcukmjrr8yyU-PgY85Cnurzg-6JH3QQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Can you please test with MIPS? David has a MIPS board now. > Quoting from my first mail -- "We tested the code on amd64, MIPS and arm." I used the board you gave to me. I run only some "basic" tests, but I can look forward running something more complicated in order to track regressions (if any). > Can you also test that various performance tests haven't been > affected? Eg, do iperf tests through that MIPS board, configured up as > an AP. > Can you be more specific? Do we need it configured as AP or this situation can be in some way simulated? > Please test with a bunch of disk IO activity too. > What benckmark/tool do you suggest? iozone? Do you think is better attaching some external drive and run test on that rather than on the flash present on the board? > I know this is a lot to ask for, but I'd hate to see some driver / > subsystem behaviour change because you didn't quite see the evil way > the callout mechanism is used, or how the timer stuff is affecting > driver pre-emption. > I understand your concerns. I'll try to do my best in order to heavily test. Any kind of suggestion is obviously appreciated. > Thanks, > > > Adrian > > On 15 December 2012 08:55, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org> wrote: >> Hi. >> >> I'm sorry to interrupt review, but as usual good ideas came during the final >> testing, causing another round. :) Here is updated patch for HEAD, that >> includes several new changes: >> http://people.freebsd.org/~mav/calloutng_12_15.patch >> >> The new changes are: >> -- Precision and event aggregation code was reworked. Instead of previous >> -prec/+prec representation, precision is now single-sided -- -0/+prec. It >> allowed to significantly improve precision on long time intervals for APIs >> which imply that event should not happen before the specified time. >> Depending on CPU activity, mistake for long time intervals now will never be >> more then 1-500ms, even if specified precision allows more. >> -- Some minor optimizations were made to reduce callout overhead and >> latency by 1.5-2us. Now on Core2Duo amd64 system with LAPIC eventtimer and >> TSC timecounter usleep(1) call from user-level executes in just 5-6us, >> instead of 7-8us before. Now it can do 180K cycles per second on single CPU >> with only partial CPU load. >> -- Number of kernel subsystems (dcons, syscons, yarrow, led, atkbd, >> setrlimit) were modified to reduce number of interrupts, also with event >> aggregation by explicit specification of the acceptable events precision. >> Now my Core2Duo test system has only 30 interrupts per second in idle. If >> not remaining syscons events, it could easily be 15. My IvyBridge ultrabook >> first time in its history shown 5.5 hours of battery time with full screen >> brightness and 10 hours with lid closed. >> -- Some kernel functions were added to make KPIs more complete. >> >> I've successfully tested this patch on amd64 and arm. >> >> -- >> Alexander Motin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACYV=-GP=mFTTLAbgSweUzwsdcau4N_qyF2L=CvrBBDGrA65RQ>