From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 25 09:15:31 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EF716A406 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:15:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 379AA13C46B for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:15:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-current@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1HLFTb-0002Zk-Nr for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:15:27 +0100 Received: from 194.204.57.56 ([194.204.57.56]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:15:27 +0100 Received: from ivoras by 194.204.57.56 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sun, 25 Feb 2007 10:15:27 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 11:15:23 +0100 Lines: 16 Message-ID: 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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.204.57.56 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) In-Reply-To: <20070225060908.GA47476@xor.obsecurity.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.1.0 Sender: news Subject: Re: Progress on scaling of FreeBSD on 8 CPU systems X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 09:15:31 -0000 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 :) )