From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Apr 4 19:12:33 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from wrath.cs.utah.edu (wrath.cs.utah.edu [155.99.198.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C6AB37B41E for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 19:12:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from beryl.cs.utah.edu (beryl.cs.utah.edu [155.99.212.73]) by wrath.cs.utah.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g353CTr27177; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:12:29 -0700 (MST) Received: from localhost (regehr@localhost) by beryl.cs.utah.edu (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g353CSI14220; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:12:29 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from regehr@cs.utah.edu) X-Authentication-Warning: beryl.cs.utah.edu: regehr owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 20:12:28 -0700 (MST) From: John Regehr To: Terry Lambert Cc: Subject: Re: Linuxthreads on Linux vs FreeBSD performance question In-Reply-To: <3CACF69D.3A992FFD@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <20020404195905.U14205-100000@beryl.cs.utah.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > The problem is that it's not clear what the graphs you posted > are comparing. In the context of the paper, this will probably > be mitigated somewhat. However, there are a lot of people who > will turn directly to the graphs in any paper, and yell about > them, so I doubt you are safe, not matter what you do. That's okay, I'll wear asbestos to USENIX :). > It would be useful, I think, to indicate what the benchmarks > *aren't* measuring, in the paper, in addition to what they > *are*, so that people don't make wrong application of them. > I'm not saying that they aren't figures of merit, only that > the scope of the merit is not well defined. You're right. I'll try to do this. > > If it would help draw the flames now, while I can still do something > > about it (paper is due around Apr 15), I'd be happy to post a pointer to > > my paper. > > I think that would help, but if you are going to publish and > present, you probably want to limit distribution. 8-(. I'll send a pointer to the paper to this list in a couple of days -- at present I still have a couple of sections incomplete. I think the tool I describe will be interesting and useful for FreeBSD scheduler people; it's a nice thing to have around for taking quick measurements without futzing with the kernel. > I don't klnow if you are using USER_LDT in your compiled FreeBSD > kernels, or if you have done any other tuning of the FreeBSD to > make it perform worse (or better( than GENERIC, as shipped, but > USER_LDT will seriously drop performance as well. I'll check with our FreeBSD kernel guy. Thanks for pointers to kernel functions. > apples == newer version of Linux. > > oranges == maintenance release of FreeBSD that was never supposed > to happen because 5.0 was supposed to be out by now. Ok, got it. I don't follow the releases very closely and tend to be unaware of the finer distinctions... Thanks again, John To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message