Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 18:24:11 -0700 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@FreeBSD.org> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: performance@FreeBSD.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain sockets) Message-ID: <445FEF3B.3060509@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060509012106.GA57271@xor.obsecurity.org> 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> <445FEDDA.6010001@FreeBSD.org> <20060509012106.GA57271@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote: > On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 06:18:18PM -0700, Maxim Sobolev wrote: >> 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? > > There is no disk I/O involved. Oh, sorry. -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?445FEF3B.3060509>