From owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org  Sun Jan 26 22:29:45 2020
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
 by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97E221FE4D9
 for <freebsd-arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org>;
 Sun, 26 Jan 2020 22:29:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru)
Received: from mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (mailman.nyi.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:13])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 485SHD6dCrz4ZgH
 for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 22:29:44 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru)
Received: by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix)
 id E37151FE4D8; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 22:29:44 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-To: arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
 by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E33831FE4D7
 for <arch@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 22:29:44 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru)
Received: from zxy.spb.ru (zxy.spb.ru [195.70.199.98])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 485SHC39w3z4ZgG
 for <arch@freebsd.org>; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 22:29:43 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from slw@zxy.spb.ru)
Received: from slw by zxy.spb.ru with local (Exim 4.86 (FreeBSD))
 (envelope-from <slw@zxy.spb.ru>)
 id 1ivqPO-000DVB-UM; Mon, 27 Jan 2020 01:29:34 +0300
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2020 01:29:34 +0300
From: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru>
To: Jeff Roberson <jroberson@jroberson.net>
Cc: arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: New Safe Memory Reclamation feature in UMA
Message-ID: <20200126222934.GN38096@zxy.spb.ru>
References: <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.2001250820220.1198@desktop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.2001250820220.1198@desktop>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: <locally generated>
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: slw@zxy.spb.ru
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on zxy.spb.ru); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 485SHC39w3z4ZgG
X-Spamd-Bar: ++
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none;
 spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of slw@zxy.spb.ru has no SPF policy when
 checking 195.70.199.98) smtp.mailfrom=slw@zxy.spb.ru
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [2.50 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[];
 FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[];
 MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[];
 DMARC_NA(0.00)[zxy.spb.ru]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[];
 NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.71)[0.708,0];
 TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2];
 NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(0.81)[0.806,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[];
 FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[];
 MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+];
 ASN(0.00)[asn:5495, ipnet:195.70.192.0/19, country:RU];
 MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[];
 IP_SCORE(0.08)[asn: 5495(0.41), country: RU(0.01)];
 RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-arch/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 22:29:45 -0000

On Sat, Jan 25, 2020 at 08:58:23AM -1000, Jeff Roberson wrote:

> For the virtual memory system I needed something that could sustain 
> relatively rapid frees.  I have ended up with a scheme that integrates 
> with the allocator and uses a novel epoch/version tracking mechanism. 
> The pair of these gives me 3x faster performance with 1/20th the memory 
> overhead of our existing epoch implementation in my obviously contrived 
> perf test.  I do not want to imply that if we replaced the network epoch 

Very interesting.
What part of frees code patch you speedup?