From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 20 19:45:06 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DFB6104; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:45:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from outbackdingo@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ia0-f182.google.com (mail-ia0-f182.google.com [209.85.210.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3203D8FC0A; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:45:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ia0-f182.google.com with SMTP id k10so1515452iag.13 for ; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:45:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=8EPTniMXRD0pdaiNVYFGJU3u0zv3LD/ySgEjTeuarng=; b=O0PDbcluqJ1TkFSx3vixPNI+BIYBGc6/AX8KJ9e0pPp8K1mZx+QMgu1J+Yvk4d9wcL rPTRVKLVGLvzD+LmvS0k9WYpGrfMf5G1vINQPPaGODJobmdph450P6mWw1wHvLnHrBgv k6uQfagrvpFnkITXKuYF5l497raTryWdZTtNFXY0Db53zEVEWT1S9epU4FoWPHFhTw2c JycUhfFV10kd1TQWk0Av5QEeZ0k3JoYJn4+W/wvSQIPv9FTvg4QKR2VdHzxw9KbGWbYr 1HZVFzs1JI+JGDO6SEt5qzmgkzLESfhQf2Y4VBW+TN86cWlMMMWrdEtE1BsbKCzKUxtP /E7w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.40.225 with SMTP id a1mr5939442igl.7.1350762305625; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:45:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.72.135 with HTTP; Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:45:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <191784842.2570110.1350737132305.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 15:45:05 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: NFS server bottlenecks From: Outback Dingo To: Ivan Voras Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Hackers" , Rick Macklem , Nikolay Denev X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 19:45:06 -0000 On Sat, Oct 20, 2012 at 3:28 PM, Ivan Voras wrote: > On 20 October 2012 14:45, Rick Macklem wrote: >> Ivan Voras wrote: > >>> I don't know how to interpret the rise in context switches; as this is >>> kernel code, I'd expect no context switches. I hope someone else can >>> explain. >>> >> Don't the mtx_lock() calls spin for a little while and then context >> switch if another thread still has it locked? > > Yes, but are in-kernel context switches also counted? I was assuming > they are light-weight enough not to count. > >> Hmm, I didn't look, but were there any tests using UDP mounts? >> (I would have thought that your patch would mainly affect UDP mounts, >> since that is when my version still has the single LRU queue/mutex. > > Another assumption - I thought UDP was the default. > >> As I think you know, my concern with your patch would be correctness >> for UDP, not performance.) > > Yes. Ive got a similar box config here, with 2x 10GB intel nics, and 24 2TB drives on an LSI controller. Im watching the thread patiently, im kinda looking for results, and answers, Though Im also tempted to run benchmarks on my system also see if i get similar results I also considered that netmap might be one but not quite sure if it would help NFS, since its to hard to tell if its a network bottle neck, though it appears to be network related. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"