From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Nov 12 14:17:42 2003
Return-Path: <owner-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 CFD1A16A4F5
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:17:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD6543FE3
	for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>;
	Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:17:41 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com)
Received: (from dan@localhost)
	by dan.emsphone.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id hACMHZWG076057;
	Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:17:35 -0600 (CST)
	(envelope-from dan)
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:17:35 -0600
From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com>
To: Daniel Ellard <ellard@eecs.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <20031112221735.GE37293@dan.emsphone.com>
References: <20031112103358.S11644@bowser.eecs.harvard.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20031112103358.S11644@bowser.eecs.harvard.edu>
X-OS: FreeBSD 5.1-CURRENT
X-message-flag: Outlook Error
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1i
cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Confused about HyperThreading and Performance
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:17:42 -0000

In the last episode (Nov 12), Daniel Ellard said:
> When I run a kernel using the default configuration (no SMP, no
> APIC), the application takes an average of 8.45 seconds (wall-clock
> time) to run, and this number is consistent from run to run.  When I
> run a kernel built with either SMP or SMP+APIC, it takes an average
> of 13.25 seconds, and this number is also quite consistent.  (It's
> not the Alteon; using the Intel Pro/1000 XT server adapter with the
> em driver gives a similar difference, although the intel NIC is
> slower.)
> 
> Interestingly, the CPU utilization for the default kernel is about
> 75-80%, while for the APIC kernel it is over 95%.  My guess would be
> that something is spinning on a lock in the APIC kernel, but that's
> just a hunch.

You may just be seeing the overhead due to having SMP enabled.  A
single-processor kernel doesn't need to lock structures against
simultaneous access by another CPU.

-- 
	Dan Nelson
	dnelson@allantgroup.com