Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 13:26:16 +0000 (GMT) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Max Laier <max@love2party.net> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Switch pfil(9) to rmlocks Message-ID: <20071123132453.W98338@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <200711231232.04447.max@love2party.net> References: <200711231232.04447.max@love2party.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Max Laier wrote: > attached is a diff to switch the pfil(9) subsystem to rmlocks, which are > more suited for the task. I'd like some exposure before doing the switch, > but I don't expect any fallout. This email is going through the patched > pfil already - twice. Max, Have you done performance measurements that show rmlocks to be a win in this scenario? I did some patchs for UNIX domain sockets to replace the rwlock there but it appeared not to have a measurable impact on SQL benchmarks, presumbaly because the read/write blend wasn't right and/or that wasnt a significant source of overhead in the benchmark. I'd anticipate a much more measurable improvement for pfil, but would be interested in learning how much is seen? Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071123132453.W98338>