Date: Sat, 8 May 2010 16:00:44 -0700 From: "K. Macy" <kmacy@freebsd.org> To: bf1783@gmail.com Cc: alc@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Recent sys/vm/ changes and nvidia-driver Message-ID: <m2j82c4140e1005081600u80823e01k756981ffd2c27931@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTil0Gs3shexWm28gceSFpvIeJKfMAYEk9_t4jmzH@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTil0Gs3shexWm28gceSFpvIeJKfMAYEk9_t4jmzH@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 2:20 PM, b. f. <bf1783@googlemail.com> wrote: > On 05/08/10 13:36, Alan Cox wrote: >> Doug Barton wrote: >>> On 05/05/10 11:56, Alan Cox wrote: >>> >>>> I'm afraid that I would advise waiting a few days. This round of >>>> changes >>>> are not yet complete. > > What performance differences, if any, can we expect on uniprocessors > from the vm page lock-related changes? Kip's original post on -arch > mentioned some performance improvements and no significant > regressions, but on a dual 4-core machine. I wouldn't actually worry about UP since the overhead can largely be disabled by building without SMP. I think we need to be looking at how a dual-core system performs, trading off any regressions there against current processor trends of ever higher core and thread count. Cheers, Kiphelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2j82c4140e1005081600u80823e01k756981ffd2c27931>