From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 29 00:47:31 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F31CB16A41F for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:47:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cracauer@schlepper.zs64.net) Received: from schlepper.zs64.net (schlepper.zs64.net [212.12.50.230]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BF0D43D66 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:47:28 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cracauer@schlepper.zs64.net) Received: from schlepper.zs64.net (schlepper [212.12.50.230]) by schlepper.zs64.net (8.13.3/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBT0lRfx083992; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 01:47:27 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from cracauer@schlepper.zs64.net) Received: (from cracauer@localhost) by schlepper.zs64.net (8.13.3/8.12.9/Submit) id jBT0lRZT083991; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:47:27 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from cracauer) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:47:27 -0500 From: Martin Cracauer To: Kris Kennaway Message-ID: <20051228194727.B83703@cons.org> References: <43A26FFB.9080405@samsco.org> <20051216104022.A20877@cons.org> <20051217063409.GB19094@silverwraith.com> <20051217080109.GA31849@xor.obsecurity.org> <20051222173308.B23728@cons.org> <43ACACFB.9070308@obsecurity.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <43ACACFB.9070308@obsecurity.org>; from kris@obsecurity.org on Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 12:35:47PM +1030 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Martin Cracauer Subject: Re: My wish list for 6.1 X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:47:31 -0000 Kris Kennaway wrote on Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 12:35:47PM +1030: > Martin Cracauer wrote: > > > > > I tried to model different worklods. The parallel part of my > > benchmark suite has CPU-heavy processes, short plain http, php, long > > plain http and mixtures thereof. > > > > None of these showed the SMP kernel to be an overall disadvantage on a > > one-processor system. > > What you want is to find a real-world workload that exercises a lot of > mutexes. These exist, and they'll see the most pessimization from > running SMP kernel on UP. Well, I would be thankful for some ideas. I'd like to develop my benchmark suite from a pure hardware testing platform into one which can be used to measure improvements in SMP kernels. However, I am fully aware that what I am doing now (CPU loaders, and small and big http over localhost, make -j ) doesn't cut it. If you want to keep hardware out of the loop, things become hairy. Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer http://www.cons.org/cracauer/ FreeBSD - where you want to go, today. http://www.freebsd.org/