Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:22:49 -0800 From: "Kip Macy" <kip.macy@gmail.com> To: "Stephen Montgomery-Smith" <stephen@math.missouri.edu> Cc: binto <binto@triplegate.net.id>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org>, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Girwatson@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Before & After Under The Giant Lock Message-ID: <b1fa29170711251322t2e44881pd2595a3a2387f4fa@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20071125151941.I6583@cauchy.math.missouri.edu> References: <474830F9.90305@zirakzigil.org> <6eb82e0711240638g2cc1e54o1fb1321cafe8ff9f@mail.gmail.com> <1188.202.127.99.4.1195957922.squirrel@webmail.triplegate.net.id> <20071125110116.U63238@fledge.watson.org> <20071125143546.V6583@cauchy.math.missouri.edu> <20071125211807.GA12250@freebsd.org> <20071125151941.I6583@cauchy.math.missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> > >> I just want to add my 2 cents, that my recent experience with FreeBSD MP > >> has been extremely positive. I tend to use highly CPU bound MP programs, > >> typically lots and lots of floating point operations. It used to be that > >> Linux beat FreeBSD hands down - now FreeBSD seems to have a slight edge! > >> Basically my program runs about twice as fast when I run two threads as > >> opposed to one - I cannot see doing any better than that! > > > > pure computation does not need kernel operations most of the time.. ie. > > multi-threading kernel wont help much ;) > > > > Yes, I know. But something else was also done to FreeBSD, perhaps fine > tuning with the scheduler, that did bring about massive improvements. > I assume you're using ULE. Jeff has gone to great lengths to take cache affinity into account. This may be what you are benefiting from. -Kip
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?b1fa29170711251322t2e44881pd2595a3a2387f4fa>