From owner-freebsd-current  Sat Jun 16  0:11:36 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from superconductor.rush.net (superconductor.rush.net [208.9.155.8])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C575037B406; Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bright@superconductor.rush.net)
Received: (from bright@localhost)
	by superconductor.rush.net (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f5G7BM111996;
	Sat, 16 Jun 2001 03:11:22 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 03:11:21 -0400
From: Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net>
To: Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com>
Cc: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@technokratis.com>,
	freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, terry@FreeBSD.ORG, rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG,
	jlemon@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: New Mbuf Allocator (some graphs)
Message-ID: <20010616031121.K1832@superconductor.rush.net>
References: <20010615185421.A1179@technokratis.com> <20010615183255.C68883@prism.flugsvamp.com> <20010615194459.A1549@technokratis.com> <20010615235605.E68883@prism.flugsvamp.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0us
In-Reply-To: <20010615235605.E68883@prism.flugsvamp.com>; from jlemon@flugsvamp.com on Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 11:56:05PM -0500
X-all-your-base: are belong to us.
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-current.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-current>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-current>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

* Jonathan Lemon <jlemon@flugsvamp.com> [010616 00:56] wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 07:44:59PM -0400, Bosko Milekic wrote:
> 
> > > >   Here are some performance results. Keep in mind that we're still under
> > > > Giant.
> > > > 
> > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~bmilekic/code/mb_alloc/results.html
> > > 
> > > Just for comparision, 6-way results are at:
> > > 
> > >     http://www.flugsvamp.com/~jlemon/fbsd/netpipe/
> > 
> > 	Are you sure those aren't inverted? (i.e. swap(present, mb_alloc)?)
> > 
> > 	In any case, the mb_alloc code you used still has the malloc() and
> > free() calls during cluster allocation and freeing and still, it looks to
> > me as very comparable nonetheless. 
> 
> I've updated the page with results from running Bosko's latest
> code (without the malloc/free calls).  The results are at the
> above URL.  The performance of the new allocator on this benchmark
> comes out ahead of the old one.

It would be better if we could allocate/free clusters+mbufs+refcounts
under a single lock.  It would simplify the API and save a boatload
of cycles and i-cache by avoiding the mutex operations.

Not that I object to the current code, I'm just wondering when this
important optimization is going to be made, or that the interface
will settle down enough so that I can get started on it.

-- 
-Alfred Perlstein [alfred@freebsd.org]
Instead of asking why a piece of software is using "1970s technology,"
start asking why software is ignoring 30 years of accumulated wisdom.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message