Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 08:19:58 +0700 (WIT) From: "binto" <binto@triplegate.net.id> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Cc: binto <binto@triplegate.net.id>, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Before & After Under The Giant Lock Message-ID: <2757.202.127.98.144.1196212798.squirrel@webmail.triplegate.net.id> In-Reply-To: <474A17DE.7010804@FreeBSD.org> References: <474830F9.90305@zirakzigil.org> <6eb82e0711240638g2cc1e54o1fb1321cafe8ff9f@mail.gmail.com> <1188.202.127.99.4.1195957922.squirrel@webmail.triplegate.net.id> <20071125110116.U63238@fledge.watson.org> <20071125143546.V6583@cauchy.math.missouri.edu> <20071125211807.GA12250@freebsd.org> <474A17DE.7010804@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Thanks for all response, especially for Mr. Robert N M Watson I read all , and i got a lot thing from conversation about this. It's nice community, thanks once again. Regards Binto > Roman Divacky wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 02:41:35PM -0600, Stephen Montgomery-Smith >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Robert Watson wrote: >>> >>>> ........................ >>>> In FreeBSD 8, I expect we'll see a continued focus on both locking >>>> granularity and improving opportunities for kernel parallelism by >>>> better >>>> distributing workloads over CPU pools. This is important because the >>>> number of cores/chip is continuing to increase dramatically, so MP >>>> performance is going to be important to keep working on. That said, >>>> the >>>> results to date have been extremely promising, and I anticipate that >>>> we >>>> will continue to find ways to better exploit multiprocessor hardware, >>>> especially in the network stack. >>>> >>> I just want to add my 2 cents, that my recent experience with FreeBSD >>> MP >>> has been extremely positive. I tend to use highly CPU bound MP >>> programs, >>> typically lots and lots of floating point operations. It used to be >>> that >>> Linux beat FreeBSD hands down - now FreeBSD seems to have a slight >>> edge! >>> Basically my program runs about twice as fast when I run two threads as >>> opposed to one - I cannot see doing any better than that! >> >> pure computation does not need kernel operations most of the time.. ie. >> multi-threading kernel wont help much ;) > > It has an indirect benefit by (presumably) not being in contention > with the userland process, and not needing slap Giant on the whole > system every few milliseconds. > > Doug > > -- > > This .signature sanitized for your protection > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2757.202.127.98.144.1196212798.squirrel>