Date: Sat, 3 Jun 2006 11:10:23 -0400 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Sven Petai <hadara@bsd.ee> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org>, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain sockets) Message-ID: <20060603151023.GA341@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <200605142221.46093.hadara@bsd.ee> References: <20060506150622.C17611@fledge.watson.org> <20060507230430.GA6872@xor.obsecurity.org> <20060508065207.GA20386@xor.obsecurity.org> <200605142221.46093.hadara@bsd.ee>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 10:21:45PM +0300, Sven Petai wrote:
> > int
> > chgsbsize(uip, hiwat, to, max)
> > struct uidinfo *uip;
> > u_int *hiwat;
> > u_int to;
> > rlim_t max;
> > {
> > rlim_t new;
> >
> > UIDINFO_LOCK(uip);
> >
> > So the next question is how can that be optimized?
> >
> > Kris
>
> hi
>
> on the 8 core machine this lock was the top contended one with rwatsons patch,
> with over 8 million failed acquire attempts.
> Originally the unp lock had only ~3 million of those, so this explains the
> sharp drop with larger number of threads I suppose.
>
> I feel like I'm missing some very obvious reason, but wouldn't the simplest
> workaround be just to return 1 right away if limit is set to infinity, which
> is almost always the case since it's the default, and document on the
> login.conf manpage that you might take performance hit with this type of
> workloads when you set sbsize limits.
I tried removing the locking here but did not see a performance
change, so I concluded that it's not actually a bottleneck.
FYI, I have been working on the locking profiling tools quite a bit
lately, and also have started profiling on a 32-thread sun4v system.
I hope to have the patches ready to send out soon (they fix a serious
design error in mutex profiling that makes some of the profiling stats
meaningless, substantially fix performance (20%-25% cost at the moment
instead of >80%), and I also have an implementation of spinlock
profiling using ktr that seems to be extremely cheap). All of my
other large MP systems are offline though, so the only machines I have
for profiling right now are a dual p4 xeon and Kip Macy's 32-way T1
:-)
> I wonder if I should set up automatic&periodic performance testing
> system, that would run all the tests for example once a week, with
> latest current and stable, so that it would be easier for developers
> to see how changes affect different workloads.
>
> If you guys think it would be worthwile, what would be the bechmarks
> you would like to see in addition to mysql+supersmack ?
This kind of thing might be a bit tricky to set up, but it would be
well worth it!
Kris
[-- Attachment #2 --]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFEgaZfWry0BWjoQKURAhvHAKDwtO2+rnyrUjk+AMCvwVb6BXaf3wCgtE4F
XuLbXHe2C0ie+Z7QW8larcU=
=iqLk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060603151023.GA341>