Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 00:55:41 -0400 From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@freebsd.org> To: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> Cc: Nikolay Denev <ndenev@gmail.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: NFS server bottlenecks Message-ID: <20600.62541.243673.307571@hergotha.csail.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <937460294.2185822.1350093954059.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> References: <608951636.2115684.1349992972756.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> <937460294.2185822.1350093954059.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 22:05:54 -0400 (EDT), Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> said: > I've attached the patch drc3.patch (it assumes drc2.patch has already been > applied) that replaces the single mutex with one for each hash list > for tcp. It also increases the size of NFSRVCACHE_HASHSIZE to 200. I haven't tested this at all, but I think putting all of the mutexes in an array like that is likely to cause cache-line ping-ponging. It may be better to use a pool mutex, or to put the mutexes adjacent in memory to the list heads that they protect. (But I probably won't be able to do the performance testing on any of these for a while. I have a server running the "drc2" code but haven't gotten my users to put a load on it yet.) -GAWollman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20600.62541.243673.307571>