From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 22 16:36:53 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8E016A4B3 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:36:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp018.mail.yahoo.com (smtp018.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.174.115]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DC5443F75 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2003 16:36:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from q_dolan@yahoo.com.au) Received: from vdub.onthenet.net (HELO ?172.22.1.10?) (q?dolan@203.10.89.16 with plain) by smtp.mail.vip.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Oct 2003 23:36:52 -0000 From: Q To: Andy In-Reply-To: <20031022204200.GC14012@splashground.de> References: <1066789354.21430.39.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au> <20031022082953.GA69506@rot13.obsecurity.org> <1066816287.25609.34.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au> <20031022095754.GA70026@rot13.obsecurity.org> <1066820436.25609.93.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au> <20031022144043.GI55642@dan.emsphone.com> <20031022155058.GE3640@saboteur.dek.spc.org> <20031022204200.GC14012@splashground.de> Message-Id: <1066865808.42673.28.camel@boxster.onthenet.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:36:48 +1000 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Some mmap observations compared to Linux 2.6/OpenBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 23:36:54 -0000 This is interesting, and demonstrates what I have been seeing, however OpenBSD obviously has other issues with it's mmap implementation entirely separate from this discussion. The case we are discussing is only about the choice of search technique used during the allocation of the mmap region from available free space.. an area in which FreeBSD and NetBSD clearly lag behind OpenBSD. This would in no way effect the performance of using the region after it has been allocated. Seeya...Q On Thu, 2003-10-23 at 06:42, Andy wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 04:50:58PM +0100, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 09:40:44AM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote: > > > > The actual commit quote reads: > > > > > > > > "use a red-black tree to find entries in the vm_map. augment the > > > > red-black tree to find free space between entries. speeds up memory > > > > allocation, etc..." > > > > > > > > I am wondering if there is a compelling reason why the technique used > > > > by OpenBSD could not be adapted to FreeBSD's VM system. > > > > > > Probably just a case of "too much to do and not enough people to do > > > it". FreeBSD already has sys/tree.h, which provides the red-black tree > > > macros. > > > > Now accepting patches! > > You might want to have a look at fefe's research > before you take the OpenBSD way. > > http://bulk.fefe.de/scalability/ > > aha > _______________________________________________ > 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"