Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2012 00:21:27 +0100 From: Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> To: Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org> Cc: Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [RFC/RFT] calloutng Message-ID: <20121225232126.GA47692@alchemy.franken.de> In-Reply-To: <50D03173.9080904@FreeBSD.org> References: <50CCAB99.4040308@FreeBSD.org> <50CE5B54.3050905@FreeBSD.org> <50D03173.9080904@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:03:47AM +0200, Alexander Motin wrote: > Experiments with dummynet shown ineffective support for very short > tick-based callouts. New version fixes that, allowing to get as many > tick-based callout events as hz value permits, while still be able to > aggregate events and generating minimum of interrupts. > > Also this version modifies system load average calculation to fix some > cases existing in HEAD and 9 branches, that could be fixed with new > direct callout functionality. > > http://people.freebsd.org/~mav/calloutng_12_17.patch > > With several important changes made last time I am going to delay commit > to HEAD for another week to do more testing. Comments and new test cases > are welcome. Thanks for staying tuned and commenting. FYI, I gave both calloutng_12_15_1.patch and calloutng_12_17.patch a try on sparc64 and it at least survives a buildworld there. However, with the patched kernels, buildworld times seem to increase slightly but reproducible by 1-2% (I only did four runs but typically buildworld times are rather stable and don't vary more than a minute for the same kernel and source here). Is this an expected trade-off (system time as such doesn't seem to increase)? Is there anything specific to test? Marius
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121225232126.GA47692>