From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May 11 16:04:48 2006
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3FFF16A7FC;
	Thu, 11 May 2006 16:04:48 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from scottl@samsco.org)
Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B9A943DA4;
	Thu, 11 May 2006 16:04:46 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from scottl@samsco.org)
Received: from [192.168.254.14] (imini.samsco.home [192.168.254.14])
	(authenticated bits=0)
	by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k4BG4emg008812;
	Thu, 11 May 2006 10:04:45 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from scottl@samsco.org)
Message-ID: <44636098.2010903@samsco.org>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:04:40 -0600
From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US;
	rv:1.7.7) Gecko/20050416
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.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>
In-Reply-To: <20060511145049.I72925@fledge.watson.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed 
	version=3.1.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.1 (2006-03-10) on pooker.samsco.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)
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 16:04:54 -0000

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.

Scott