Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 31 Oct 1997 22:37:50 -0500 (EST)
From:      Chuck Robey <chuckr@Glue.umd.edu>
To:        "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Cc:        smp@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Some SMP timing tests.
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.971031223222.11985L-100000@picnic.mat.net>
In-Reply-To: <26870.878356552@time.cdrom.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 31 Oct 1997, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote:

> I'm not quite sure what to make of the following data, my suspicion
> being that I'd have to actually add a killer I/O system to my test
> machine in order to *truly* see the effects of SMP on the run time of
> a make world since things look pretty I/O bound here, but nonetheless,
> having spent 3 days collecting the data, I figured it was worth at
> least posting a quick message about here. :-)
> 
> Test machine was a dual P6/200 with Tyan 1668 motherboard, 64MB of
> memory, an Adaptec 2940UW controller and IBM DCAS-34330W 4.3GB 5400
> RPM drive.  Source tree used for testing was from 3.0-971029-SNAP.
> 
> Two identical kernels were prepared, one with SMP support and one
> without, for each run a "throw away" make world being done first
> before timing a series of make -j<n> worlds, with n going from 1 to
> 20.  Each run started from a fresh reboot, no other activity going on
> during the time of the runs.

Just so I understand (I think I might try it) you had a complete make
world in the can, so you rebuilt the minimum (no make clean) right?

I have two disks (both with swap, one with /usr/src).  I have room to put
the /usr/obj on the other disk, but I'm not clear on how to do that ...
would a simple ln -s /usr2/obj /usr/obj work (usr2==2nd disk) ?

> The most interesting thing about these numbers was that at "high job
> counts", where one would expect performance to start to actually
> degrade due to having too many compiles competing for various system
> resources, performance did not fall as expected.  This leads me to
> believe that our make actually artificially limits the parallelism
> number to somewhere below 20.  I haven't bothered to look into make's
> code more thoroughly in verifying this, but that's certainly what it
> looks like.

[lots of postscript deleted]

----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------
Chuck Robey                 | Interests include any kind of voice or data 
chuckr@glue.umd.edu         | communications topic, C programming, and Unix.
213 Lakeside Drive Apt T-1  |
Greenbelt, MD 20770         | I run Journey2 and picnic, both FreeBSD
(301) 220-2114              | version 3.0 current -- and great FUN!
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------------







Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971031223222.11985L-100000>