Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:12:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Xin LI <delphij@frontfree.net> Cc: Tim Robbins <tjr@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: JKH project.. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0404121801350.9723-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20040413005232.GA2959@frontfree.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Xin LI wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 04:50:18PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Tim Robbins wrote: > [...] > > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 03:51:45PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > > the fork syscall has to check the new PID against all exixting pids.. [...] > [...] > > > > Well what you've done seems to fit my definition of "improved".. > > > > anyone got comments? > > If memory serves me right, there's a benchmark done by David Schultz > earlier this year, which is done to compare the NetBSD's PID Allocator > ported by Jun Su[1,2] with Tim's hash based allocator[3] in p4. > > The benchmark report is available here: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~das/pbench/pbench.html Thankyou! it would be nice to see the "benchmarsk run with a larger number of processes, but it looks like both allternatives are an improvement.. > > [1] Jun Su's original patch > http://www.arbornet.org/~junsu/pid.diff > [2] Jun Su's patch I maintained locally to adopt latest -CURRENT changes > http://research.delphij.net/freebsd/pid.diff > [3] Tim's patch in p4 > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=43361 > > There were a discussion in current@ in February, for reference: > > My first post in January as a "Call for testers": > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-January/019940.html > > Jun Su's post about update of his patch: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-February/020503.html > > David Schultz's post of his benchmark: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-February/020807.html > > John's opinion: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-February/020957.html > > There're many other discussions during this, which is valuable to > read. > > I personally prefered junsu's version as the side effect of the patch > makes pids smaller, however, I'd concur the concerns about simplicity > of code will be a good reason of the final decision. Simplicity is a definite factor. Other people have to be able to maintain what goes in.. > > Cheers, > -- > Xin LI <delphij frontfree net> http://www.delphij.net/ > See complete headers for GPG key and other information. > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0404121801350.9723-100000>