From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 8 23:15:05 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DFA416A47E; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:15:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kmacy@fsmware.com) Received: from demos.bsdclusters.com (demos.bsdclusters.com [69.55.225.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B2043D49; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 23:15:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kmacy@fsmware.com) Received: from demos.bsdclusters.com (demos [69.55.225.36]) by demos.bsdclusters.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k98NF2lZ036259; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 16:15:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from kmacy@fsmware.com) Received: from localhost (kmacy@localhost) by demos.bsdclusters.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) with ESMTP id k98NEuar036158; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 16:15:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: demos.bsdclusters.com: kmacy owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 16:14:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Kip Macy X-X-Sender: kmacy@demos.bsdclusters.com To: Attilio Rao In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10610081603r1161ac38h4b679e452b6849f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061008160742.N29803@demos.bsdclusters.com> References: <2fd864e0610080423q7ba6bdeal656a223e662a5d@mail.gmail.com> <20061008135031.G83537@demos.bsdclusters.com> <4529667D.8070108@fer.hr> <200610090634.31297.davidxu@freebsd.org> <20061008225150.GK793@funkthat.com> <3bbf2fe10610081555r67265368sf7f12edbf35bff0d@mail.gmail.com> <20061008155817.G29803@demos.bsdclusters.com> <3bbf2fe10610081603r1161ac38h4b679e452b6849f6@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: John-Mark Gurney , freebsd-current@freebsd.org, David Xu , Ivan Voras Subject: Re: [PATCH] MAXCPU alterable in kernel config - needs testers 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: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:15:05 -0000 In my own tree I have support for profiling all kernel locks (sx, lockmgr, spin mutexes, and blocking mutexes - not just the current profiling for blocking mutexes) which I'll commit after sun4v has been completely checked in. The biggest offenders on the workloads I've looked at are the lockmgr locks in VFS, user_map (sx) in VM, and sched_lock (spin). Substantial effort will be needed to make FreeBSD scale well past 4 cpus. -Kip On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Attilio Rao wrote: > 2006/10/9, Kip Macy : > > > > > > How would you see a sched_lock decomposition (and, if it is possible, > > > how many locks it could be decomposed in?) > > > > Rather than having a per thread lock, Solaris uses the lock for the > > current container that a thread is associated with (cpu, run queue, > > sleep queue, etc.) to serialize thread updates. I think this is probably > > the best approach. A per proess spin lock would not scale well for large > > multi-threaded apps. > > Yes, this is what I was thinking to. > Maybe sched_lock could be reworked when all the other issues about > SMPng would be closed. > IIRC, somebody was speaking about the starting of a new project which > was related to the analisys and decomposition of the more contentive > locks. > > Attilio > > > -- > Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >