Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:04:40 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, performance@freebsd.org, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain sockets) Message-ID: <44636098.2010903@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20060511145049.I72925@fledge.watson.org> References: <20060506150622.C17611@fledge.watson.org> <20060509181302.GD3636@eucla.lemis.com> <20060509182330.GB92714@xor.obsecurity.org> <200605100726.28243.davidxu@freebsd.org> <20060511145049.I72925@fledge.watson.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
Robert Watson wrote: > > On Wed, 10 May 2006, David Xu wrote: > >> Fixing one of big lock contentions is not enough, you have to fix them >> all, it is easy to see that a second contention becomes a top one. :-) > > > So I guess the real question is: do we want to merge the UNIX domain > socket locking work? The MySQL gains sound good, the performance drop > under very high load seems problematic, and there are more general > questions about performance with other workloads. > > Maintaining this patch for a month or so is no problem, but as the tree > changes it will get harder. > > Robert N M Watson The only thing I'm afraid of is that it'll get pushed onto the back-burner once it's in CVS, and we'll have a mad scramble to fix it when it's time for 7.0. That's not a show-stopper for it going in, as there are also numerous benefits. It's just something that needs to be tracked and worked on. Scotthome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44636098.2010903>