From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 22 14:24:17 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B8B816A473 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:24:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-stable@m.gmane.org) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A069E13C455 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:24:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-stable@m.gmane.org) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IvCyB-0004ds-Ko for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:23:55 +0000 Received: from lara.cc.fer.hr ([161.53.72.113]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:23:55 +0000 Received: from ivoras by lara.cc.fer.hr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:23:55 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org From: Ivan Voras Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 15:27:54 +0100 Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <4741905E.8050300@chistydom.ru> <4742ADFE.40902@FreeBSD.org> <4742C46A.1060701@chistydom.ru> <47432F77.3030606@FreeBSD.org> <474339E9.4080301@FreeBSD.org> <4743629B.9090408@FreeBSD.org> <47440C10.5060608@FreeBSD.org> <47440E55.3060909@FreeBSD.org> <9bbcef730711210320s73c0625bh25ba2561b270f237@mail.gmail.com> <47448CC2.7030100@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: lara.cc.fer.hr User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070801) In-Reply-To: <47448CC2.7030100@FreeBSD.org> Sender: news Subject: Re: 2 x quad-core system is slower that 2 x dual core on FreeBSD X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:24:17 -0000 Kris Kennaway wrote: > Ivan Voras wrote: >> On 21/11/2007, Kris Kennaway wrote: >>> Ivan Voras wrote: >> >>>> Yes, but I had to verify it anyway :) >>> You haven't verified anything until you look at how much work the system >>> is doing, before and after. >> >> I have, and it's roughly the same (50 +/- 2 queries/s). >> >> (meaning that I'm not interested in exact statistics here, but in >> order-of-magnitude changes, which didn't happen). > > OK, let's take a step back here. Did you obtain the lock profiling > trace and verify that you're seeing the same problem as Alexey? Can I > see the trace? Here it is: http://ivoras.sharanet.org/stuff/lock_profile.txt This is without your patch. There's a lot of ZFS locks in there, but it seems lockmgr:ufs and lockmgr:zfs have the largest records: 299117621 1474776121 148663 1042821 1414 0 513 440 /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c:2035 (lockmgr:ufs) 117958368 847566147 182093 2676 316728 68 948 374 /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c:515 (lockmgr:zfs) Which is surprising since all the working-set file systems are on ZFS, only the root and /tmp are on UFS. /tmp also holds sockets for the databases. Your reading of the lock profile will be appreciated.