Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 22:26:55 +0800 From: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC how to use kernel procs/threads efficiently Message-ID: <776311c7-9676-c579-a156-8e929e8f1b31@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <YQXPR0101MB0997EA8AA84E4F8987FC417DDD750@YQXPR0101MB0997.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> References: <YQXPR0101MB099752292CCAC9E8A72C1E96DD710@YQXPR0101MB0997.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <1507317060.86205.268.camel@freebsd.org> <YQXPR0101MB0997FAE97A7E42BCF570AA7EDD740@YQXPR0101MB0997.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <e4a4c6ff-5ce0-b979-ab84-32136acdcba6@freebsd.org> <YQXPR0101MB0997EA8AA84E4F8987FC417DDD750@YQXPR0101MB0997.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/10/17 8:33 pm, Rick Macklem wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: > [stuff snipped] >> On 10/10/17 4:25 am, Rick Macklem wrote: >>> --> As such, having a fixed reasonable # of threads is probably the best >>> that can be done. >>> - The current patch has the # of threads as a sysctl with a default of 32. >> why not set it to ncpu or something? > Well, each of these threads will do an RPC, which means a couple of short > bursts of CPU and then sleep the rest of the time waiting for the RPC reply > to come back from the Data Server. > As such, it would seem to me that you would want a lot more threads than > CPUs on the machine? > However, setting the default to "N * ncpu" seems better than just a fixed "32" > to me. (For nfsd, the current default is 8 * ncpu, so maybe that is a good > default for this too?) yeah I really just meant "some function of ncpu".. not specifically "ncpu x 1" > What do you think? > > Thanks for the comment, rick > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?776311c7-9676-c579-a156-8e929e8f1b31>