From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 9 01:18:32 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3D416A440; Tue, 9 May 2006 01:18:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sippysoft.com (gk.360sip.com [72.236.70.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6937543D49; Tue, 9 May 2006 01:18:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [192.168.1.73] ([204.244.149.125]) (authenticated bits=0) by sippysoft.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k491IRPL091048 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 May 2006 18:18:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sobomax@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <445FEDDA.6010001@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 18:18:18 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev Organization: Sippy Software, Inc. User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kris Kennaway References: <20060506150622.C17611@fledge.watson.org> <20060506221908.GB51268@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060507210426.GA4422@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060507214153.GA5275@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060507230430.GA6872@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060508065207.GA20386@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060509004328.GB55852@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20060509004328.GB55852@xor.obsecurity.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-U; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Robert Watson , performance@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain sockets) X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 May 2006 01:18:32 -0000 Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 02:52:07AM -0400, Kris Kennaway wrote: >> OK, David's patch fixes the umtx thundering herd (and seems to give a >> 4-6% boost). I also fixed a thundering herd in FILEDESC_UNLOCK (which >> was also waking up 2-7 CPUs at once about 30% of the time) by doing >> s/wakeup/wakeup_one/. This did not seem to give a performance impact >> on this test though. > > Turning down kern.hz from 1000 to 100 also made a big difference on 12 > CPUs (+6.1%). > > Note also that the system is no less than 40% idle during the runs (at > any load), so the bottlenecks are serious. Maybe HDD just can't keep up with the pace? -Maxim