From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 11 16:04:48 2006 Return-Path: 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 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 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 , performance@freebsd.org, David Xu , 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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