Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 14:09:19 -0500 From: Anton Yuzhaninov <citrin+bsd@citrin.ru> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: about that DFBSD performance test Message-ID: <7d02f9f3-8dd3-9dc9-56d6-be9a34b49750@citrin.ru> In-Reply-To: <20170308150346.GA32269@dft-labs.eu> References: <b91a6e40-9956-1ad9-ac59-41a281846147@norma.perm.ru> <CAK7dMtDiT-PKyy5LkT1WEg5g-nwqv501F=Ap4dNCdwzwr_1dqA@mail.gmail.com> <20170308125710.GS15630@zxy.spb.ru> <20170308150346.GA32269@dft-labs.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/08/17 10:03, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > First and foremost there is general kernel scalability. Certain counters > and most locks are purely managed with atomic operations. An atomic > operation grabs the entire cacheline with the particular variable (64 > bytes in total) in exclusive mode. Isn't problem of atomic counters was solved by counter(9) framework?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7d02f9f3-8dd3-9dc9-56d6-be9a34b49750>