From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Feb 25 14:07:35 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 79AFE713
 for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:07:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [IPv6:2001:470:1f05:b76::196])
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61ECCC54
 for <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org>; Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:07:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from AlfredMacbookAir.local (unknown [12.133.26.10])
 by elvis.mu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EAEFA341F906;
 Wed, 25 Feb 2015 06:07:33 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54EDD7F9.9030608@mu.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 09:11:05 -0500
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10;
 rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, 
 Harrison Grundy <harrison.grundy@astrodoggroup.com>
Subject: Re: locks and kernel randomness...
References: <DD06E2EA-68D6-43D7-AA17-FB230750E55A@bsdimp.com>
 <20150224174053.GG46794@funkthat.com> <54ECBD4B.6000007@freebsd.org>
 <20150224182507.GI46794@funkthat.com> <54ECEA43.2080008@freebsd.org>
 <20150224231921.GQ46794@funkthat.com>
 <CAHM0Q_NhUpr_HJZZcAEoZ_hNvZKcVzUBH-7LALsbkgqjLimA7A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150225002301.GS46794@funkthat.com> <54ED80BD.1080603@freebsd.org>
 <54ED87E9.8030706@astrodoggroup.com> <20150225085659.GA74514@kib.kiev.ua>
In-Reply-To: <20150225085659.GA74514@kib.kiev.ua>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture <freebsd-arch.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://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: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch>,
 <mailto:freebsd-arch-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:07:35 -0000



On 2/25/15 3:56 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote:

> The cost of the proposed patch, of course, is not the several
> thousands of instructions in the rebalance. The problem with it is the
> introduction of the new spinlock, which will be used in many places
> after the introduction. The cost of the new and often used spinlock is
> the increase of both interrupt latency and interrupt handler jitter and
> cpu switch jitter.
>
> So neither buildworld timing, nor network throughput are adequate
> to estimate the change.  It is system unresponsivness and loss of
> the realtime behaviour up to some degree.
>
> I thought that it was obvious, at least after spinlocks were mentioned,
> but apparently it is not, since proposals to measure the patch effect
> by benchmarking buildworld or passing the traffic are made.
>

Thank you.

-Alfred