From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 2 14:35:38 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D3616A4CE for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:35:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from fledge.watson.org (fledge.watson.org [204.156.12.50]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF03743D2D for ; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 14:35:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from fledge.watson.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fledge.watson.org (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i32MZTPq043249; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:35:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Received: from localhost (robert@localhost)i32MZTNH043246; Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:35:29 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from robert@fledge.watson.org) Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:35:29 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson X-Sender: robert@fledge.watson.org To: Thierry Herbelot In-Reply-To: <200404011829.04221.thierry@herbelot.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org cc: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" Subject: Re: implications of SMP kernel on UP X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Apr 2004 22:35:38 -0000 On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Thierry Herbelot wrote: > Le Thursday 01 April 2004 09:10, Bjoern A. Zeeb a =E9crit : > > Hi, > > > > what are the implications on running an SMP enabled kernel on a UP > > machine ? > > > > I first thought of things like: > > - performence (most likely not worth the discussion ?) >=20 > I got an improvement with a factor of ten between an SMP and a UP kernel > on a HTT-enabled P4/2,6GHz/800MHz FSB on network transfers (with gigabit > Ethernet boards : SMP gives about 6MB/s for FTP transfer rate, and UP > gives up to 75MB/s)=20 >=20 > So : as long as the network stack is not fully locked (this is coming - > perhaps for 5.3), a server should definitely run a UP kernel.=20 I would instead phrase this as "A kernel-bound network server may benefit from running a UP server". For compute-bound tasks, running SMP has pretty dramatic effects :-). It's also worth pointing out that in many existing configurations, even with Giant over the network stack, we already see performance benefits running 5.x with SMP over 4.x with SMP. BTW, look for network locking patches coming to the arch@ mailing list in the next couple of days to try out (subject to limitations). Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Senior Research Scientist, McAfee Research