Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:15:23 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Progress on scaling of FreeBSD on 8 CPU systems Message-ID: <errk32$br9$1@sea.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <20070225060908.GA47476@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20070224213111.GB41434@xor.obsecurity.org> <346a80220702242100i7ec22b5h4b25cc7d20d03e98@mail.gmail.com> <20070225054120.GA47059@xor.obsecurity.org> <1C143520-B893-4F43-8F7E-04B021D2EE69@siliconlandmark.com> <20070225060908.GA47476@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kris Kennaway wrote: > Hopefully within a week or two. It might not be that exact patch, I > think John wants to try and do it a bit differently instead of > introducing a new locking primitive just for this. Well why not? :) I am not an expert, but reading jeffr's posts it looks like the idea of sleepable mutexes was taken from Solaris, where it's also not exactly documented. If moving away from sleepable mutexes introduces more than a small single digit percentage drop in performance (1% on multi-gigahertz machines is a lot), why not keep it? If it's dangerous to use, that should be documented in the man page with big bold letters but if it helps, keep it. (Of course I might be completely off the track and sleepable mutexes might be inconsequential for performance here :) )
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?errk32$br9$1>