Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2015 08:09:39 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Harrison Grundy <harrison.grundy@astrodoggroup.com>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: locks and kernel randomness... Message-ID: <3A406DF7-E6A1-494D-9B7D-3666D41DBC2B@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20150225085659.GA74514@kib.kiev.ua> 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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Feb 25, 2015, at 1:56 AM, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> = wrote: > 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. Yes. You need to look at the changes affects, if any, on outlier = behavior under load. Without careful monitoring of that, you won=E2=80=99t see the bad = effects. I=E2=80=99ve made several changes over the years to improve performance that I later (usually much = later) had to back out or modify because it made the outlier behavior much worse. So data here isn=E2=80=99t =E2=80=9CI did 3 build worlds and the time = was about the same=E2=80=9D even if ministat(8) says there=E2=80=99s no difference. Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A406DF7-E6A1-494D-9B7D-3666D41DBC2B>