Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 19 Feb 2014 12:32:48 -0800
From:      Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>
To:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: [rfc] bind per-cpu timeout threads to each CPU
Message-ID:  <530514F0.2000609@mu.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=KFF_2tdyq1u=jNkWfEe1sR-89t3JNggf7MEvYsF%2BtQg@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <530508B7.7060102@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-VmokQ_C=YVpk41_r-QakB46_RWRe0didq1_RrZBMS7hDX-A@mail.gmail.com> <53050D24.3020505@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-Vmo=KFF_2tdyq1u=jNkWfEe1sR-89t3JNggf7MEvYsF%2BtQg@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On 2/19/14, 12:04 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 19 February 2014 11:59, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org> wrote:
>
>>> So if we're moving towards supporting (among others) a pcbgroup / RSS
>>> hash style work load distribution across CPUs to minimise
>>> per-connection lock contention, we really don't want the scheduler to
>>> decide it can schedule things on other CPUs under enough pressure.
>>> That'll just make things worse.
>> True, though it is also not obvious that putting second thread on CPU run
>> queue is better then executing it right now on another core.
> Well, it depends if you're trying to optimise for "run all runnable
> tasks as quickly as possible" or "run all runnable tasks in contexts
> that minimise lock contention."
>
> The former sounds great as long as there's no real lock contention
> going on. But as you add more chances for contention (something like
> "100,000 concurrent TCP flows") then you may end up having your TCP
> timer firing stuff interfere with more TXing or RXing on the same
> connection.
>
> Chasing this stuff down is a pain, because it only really shows up
> when you're doing lots of concurrency.
>
> I'm happy to make this a boot-time option and leave it off for the
> time being. How's that?

options THROUGHPUT

Yes, looks like a latency vs throughput issue.  One giant switch might 
be a starting point so that it doesn't become death of 1000 switches to 
get throughput or latency sensitive work done.

>
>
>
> -a
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
>




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?530514F0.2000609>