Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 13:13:37 +0400 (MSK) From: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> Cc: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Subject: Re: svn commit: r252032 - head/sys/amd64/include Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1306261313020.1846@woozle.rinet.ru> In-Reply-To: <20130626091055.GU1214@FreeBSD.org> References: <20130622124832.S2347@besplex.bde.org> <20130622174921.I3112@besplex.bde.org> <20130623073343.GY91021@kib.kiev.ua> <20130623181458.J2256@besplex.bde.org> <20130624170849.GH91021@kib.kiev.ua> <20130625102023.K899@besplex.bde.org> <20130625062039.GJ91021@kib.kiev.ua> <20130625190352.P986@besplex.bde.org> <20130625205826.GM91021@kib.kiev.ua> <20130626092955.B891@besplex.bde.org> <20130626091055.GU1214@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 26 Jun 2013, Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 11:42:39AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote: > B> > Anyway, as Gleb said, there is no point in > B> > optimizing the i386 kernel. > B> > B> I said that there is every point in optimizing the i386 kernel. This > B> applies even more to other 32-bit arches. Some CPUs are much slower > B> than modern x86's. They shouldn't be slowed down more by inefficient > B> KPIs. > > I didn't mean that i386 arch is a relic and should be ignored at all. > > What I actually meant, is that the problem of performance drop due to > cache poisoning and loss of statistics with simple "+=" operation can > be observed only at extremely high event rates, with multiple processors > involved. > > The counter(9) is solution for these conditions. Thus we are interested > in optimising amd64, not i386. The latter isn't affected neither positively > nor negatively with these changes, just because last i386 CPUs can't reach > the event rates where need for counter(9) arises. Yes, you can tweak > implementation and obtain better results with microbenchmarks, but I bet > that any change in counter(9) implementation won't affect packet forwarding > rate on any i386. What we claim for i386 (and all other arches) that > counter(9) is lossless, and that's all. > > I second to Konstantin, that we don't have objections in any changes to > i386 part of counter, including a daemon, but the changes shouldn't affect > amd64. Ah, apparently this mostly answers the question I've just asked ;) -- Sincerely, D.Marck [DM5020, MCK-RIPE, DM3-RIPN] [ FreeBSD committer: marck@FreeBSD.org ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *** Dmitry Morozovsky --- D.Marck --- Wild Woozle --- marck@rinet.ru *** ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1306261313020.1846>