Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:31:52 -0800 From: "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org> To: J David <j.david.lists@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: How thread-friendly is kevent? Message-ID: <CAHM0Q_OXUf5FDX485L0osdfsoYj7bgPCr==h0=_tuaq7RGnP7g@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CABXB=RTsktT7U1r5yzmwWVpJoiNFJBeT-in30r9rdo-tT-rfhQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CABXB=RQWxu-d30raZ%2BFcrnrGsr5gG2Za_=cx8-jCnLSgJDSF=Q@mail.gmail.com> <20141110071353.GO24601@funkthat.com> <CABXB=RStLz6J9L3--KsM308-0h0N5ZeZZvw1GbDi%2BZvKO4U64g@mail.gmail.com> <20141112084909.GV24601@funkthat.com> <CAHM0Q_MJjH=Cq0AKTn64RkzgwPBMoKnDVu-GvcX6qBcFYDMpOg@mail.gmail.com> <CABXB=RTsktT7U1r5yzmwWVpJoiNFJBeT-in30r9rdo-tT-rfhQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well, this was 8 cores with 45 or so processes. I'm not saying it won't scale smoothly, but it did not in the past for lighttpd. Perhaps it would have with some changes. -K On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 2:29 PM, J David <j.david.lists@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 5:14 PM, K. Macy <kmacy@freebsd.org> wrote: >> This may not be related, but it's interesting: a client I worked for >> many years ago switched from kqueue to poll for their web server >> because kqueue did not distribute the workload evenly. I imagine this >> is unchanged. > > It looks pretty good in testing: > > $ ./kqtest server > > Server thread ends after 2630979 events. > > Server thread ends after 2600452 events. > > Server thread ends after 2525542 events. > > Server thread ends after 2418386 events. > > Server thread ends after 2524895 events. > > $ > > > That's a small-scale test on a VM with two CPU's running five threads, > but the results appear to hold. (This is using the _DISPATCH model.) > > Thanks!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHM0Q_OXUf5FDX485L0osdfsoYj7bgPCr==h0=_tuaq7RGnP7g>