Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 20:02:40 +0100 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "Nick Evans" <nevans@talkpoint.com> Cc: Kip Macy <kip.macy@gmail.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@freebsd.org>, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mantaining turnstile aligned to 128 bytes in i386 CPUs Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10701161102w5a094dfge7faf641ab1a0425@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070116131836.0681a51d@pleiades.nextvenue.com> References: <3bbf2fe10607250813w8ff9e34pc505bf290e71758@mail.gmail.com> <3bbf2fe10607250814m1a476f09p2d962dedc0c99be1@mail.gmail.com> <200607251232.51230.jhb@freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10607251004wf94e238xb5ea7a31c973817f@mail.gmail.com> <3bbf2fe10607261127p3f01a6c3w80027754f7d4e594@mail.gmail.com> <3bbf2fe10607281004o6727e976h19ee7e054876f914@mail.gmail.com> <3bbf2fe10701160851r79b04464m2cbdbb7f644b22b6@mail.gmail.com> <20070116122925.5cdb1ded@pleiades.nextvenue.com> <3bbf2fe10701160951x1cb4cd75pd843b453a8f4a96@mail.gmail.com> <20070116131836.0681a51d@pleiades.nextvenue.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2007/1/16, Nick Evans <nevans@talkpoint.com>: > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:51:30 +0100 > "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > 2007/1/16, Nick Evans <nevans@talkpoint.com>: > > > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:51:03 +0100 > > > "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > > > > 2006/7/28, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>: > > > > > > > > > > After some thinking, I think it's better using init/fini methods > > > > > (since they hide the sizeof(struct turnstile) with size parameter). > > > > > > > > > > Feedbacks and comments are welcome: > > > > > http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/uma_sync_init.diff > > > > > > > > [CC'ed all the interested people] > > > > > > > > Even if a long time is passed I did some benchmarks based on ebizzy > > > > tool. This program claims to reproduce a real httpd server behaviour > > > > and is used into the Linux world for benchmarks, AFAIK. > > > > I think that results of the comparison on this patch is very > > > > interesting, and I think it worths a commit :) > > > > I think that results can be even better on a Xeon machine (I had no > > > > chance to reproduce this on some of these). > > > > (Results taken in consideration have been measured after some starts, > > > > in order to minimize caching differences). > > > > > > > > The patch: > > > > http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/ts-sq/ts-sq.diff > > > > > > > > The benchmark results: > > > > http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/ts-sq/ts-sq.benchmark > > > > > > > > The kernel options file: > > > > http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/ts-sq/CURRENT > > > > > > > > For any information, comment, etc. please feel free to contact me. > > > > > > > > Attilio > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > > > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > > > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > > > > "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > > > > > Attilio, > > > > > > What class of Xeon do you need this tested on, P3 or the newer P4+ stuff? > > > I have a few systems here I can test this on including a quad P3-Xeon box > > > that I've been testing Jeff's ULE 2.0 on. Do you have specific extra test > > > points or are the before and after for the (non)preemption cases > > > sufficient? I can also give you access to the systems if that is easier. > > > > Hi Nick, > > thanks a lot for responsivness and help. > > I think that P3 Xeon alredy should show some speedup, in particular I > > would see some tests on the P3-Xeon quad. > > It would be enough reproduce the test I did (using the same options > > file and starting ebizzy for 1-2 times before the results gathering). > > I hope you are suitable for doing this benchmarks alone (FreeBSD + > > university + job don't leave me too much time ATM :(( ). > > > > Thanks a lot for your efforts, > > Attilio > > > > > > -- > > Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein > > > Yea, we should be able to handle benchmarking this if you can help me > through the first hurdle. Do you have a version that compiles cleanly on > -CURRENT? The version I dug up off lkml via google complains: > > root@current[13:10]# make > gcc -Wall -lpthread -o ebizzy ebizzy.c > In file included from ebizzy.c:43: > /usr/include/malloc.h:3:2: #error "<malloc.h> has been replaced by <stdlib.h>" > ebizzy.c: In function `read_options': > ebizzy.c:212: warning: implicit declaration of function `mallopt' > ebizzy.c:212: error: `M_MMAP_MAX' undeclared (first use in this function) > ebizzy.c:212: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once > ebizzy.c:212: error: for each function it appears in.) > ebizzy.c: In function `alloc_mem': > ebizzy.c:224: error: `MAP_ANONYMOUS' undeclared (first use in this function) > *** Error code 1 > > Stop in /root/ebizzy. > > > I didn't see an updated version listed in our archives anywhere. Since ebizzy doesn't compile natively on FreeBSD try this patch (it disables the -m option, but it doesn't matter currently): http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/ts-sq/ebizzy.diff Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10701161102w5a094dfge7faf641ab1a0425>