From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 11 23:28:38 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from localhost.my.domain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9646B16A58F; Thu, 11 May 2006 23:28:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org) From: David Xu To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 07:28:31 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <20060506150622.C17611@fledge.watson.org> <44636098.2010903@samsco.org> <20060511185632.V90111@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20060511185632.V90111@fledge.watson.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200605120728.31786.davidxu@freebsd.org> Cc: performance@freebsd.org, Robert Watson , current@freebsd.org, Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets ( UNIX domain sockets ) 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: Thu, 11 May 2006 23:28:42 -0000 On Friday 12 May 2006 01:58, Robert Watson wrote: > On Thu, 11 May 2006, Scott Long wrote: > >> So I guess the real question is: do we want to merge the UNIX domain > >> socket locking work? The MySQL gains sound good, the performance drop > >> under very high load seems problematic, and there are more general > >> questions about performance with other workloads. > >> > >> Maintaining this patch for a month or so is no problem, but as the tree > >> changes it will get harder. > > > > The only thing I'm afraid of is that it'll get pushed onto the > > back-burner once it's in CVS, and we'll have a mad scramble to fix it > > when it's time for 7.0. That's not a show-stopper for it going in, as > > there are also numerous benefits. It's just something that needs to be > > tracked and worked on. > > I should be able to support/improve UNIX domain sockets moving forward > without a problem -- the maintenance issue is maintaining it in P4 > indefinitely, not in the tree indefinitely, as the patch basically touches > every line in the file, so any change in the vendor branch (FreeBSD CVS) > will put the entire file into conflict. To be specific: I'll track and own > this, but want to avoid having it in P4 indefinitely, because it will get > stale :-). > > Robert N M Watson Your patch makes other bottlenecks more visible than before, for example, file descriptor locking, but it is not a problem of your patch, so I think it is fine to commit it. David Xu