Date: Mon, 16 Dec 1996 11:32:22 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: michaelh@cet.co.jp (Michael Hancock) Cc: smp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: General SMP Design Message-ID: <199612161832.LAA01660@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.95.961216113146.24591B-100000@parkplace.cet.co.jp> from "Michael Hancock" at Dec 16, 96 11:47:20 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The other interesting things aside from NBS included CMDS, contention > minimizing data structures. > > They advocate per-processor pools which many agree is good for SMP > performance. It's more an issue of context migration and synchronization, and the impact on scalability. Many people who do not consider scalability (ie: a limit of 4 processors is acceptable to them) don't understand that the limit is imposed by synchronization arbitration. Per processor pools increase the number of processors you can do without hitting this limitation. For 2-4 processors, this limitation really does not impact performance enough to notice. After 4 processors, however, it becomes a real issue. So it's a post-scaling performance issue, or a scalability issue more than a pure performance issue. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612161832.LAA01660>