From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 4 19:05:49 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: arch@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA57716A421; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 19:05:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (webaccess-cl.virtdom.com [216.240.101.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFE1113C447; Wed, 4 Jul 2007 19:05:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Received: from [192.168.1.101] (c-71-231-138-78.hsd1.or.comcast.net [71.231.138.78]) (authenticated bits=0) by webaccess-cl.virtdom.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id l64J5lKA033498 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Jul 2007 15:05:48 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jroberson@chesapeake.net) Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 12:05:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Jeff Roberson X-X-Sender: jroberson@10.0.0.1 To: Attilio Rao In-Reply-To: <3bbf2fe10707040800p4e003df0p65e2b802f81ec51e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070704120347.M552@10.0.0.1> References: <20070702230728.E552@10.0.0.1> <20070703181242.T552@10.0.0.1> <20070704105525.GU45894@elvis.mu.org> <20070704124833.W37059@fledge.watson.org> <3bbf2fe10707040800p4e003df0p65e2b802f81ec51e@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Alfred Perlstein , Robert Watson Subject: Re: Fine grain select locking. X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:05:50 -0000 On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Attilio Rao wrote: > 2007/7/4, Robert Watson : >> There seem to be two parts of owning a benchmark: >> >> - Establishing baselines over time -- how doe FreeBSD 4.8, 5.5, 6.0, 6.1, >> 6.2, >> 6-STABLE weekly, 7-CURRENT weekly, and maybe a Linux or NetBSD version >> perform for the workload using otherwise identical configuration. >> >> - Measurement and feedback -- identifying bottlenecks, working with >> developers >> to measure the results of specific optimizations, etc, across the life >> cycle >> of the patch. > > Another problem here would be about the hardware availabilty > (obviously I'm speaking about scalability improvements). > Until now, tests have been done mainly on amd64 machines provided by > Kris and Jeff, IIRC. > Having a wider range of targets would help a lot in these cases. Yes, definitely. For the scheduler work I often see certain decisions fair worse on different platforms even running the same workload. It would be valuable to me to have a wider array of hardware as well as benchmarks. The netperf cluster helps, but for general scheduler work I also need to know how it fares on a large variety of platforms. Thanks, Jeff > > Attilio > > > -- > Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-arch@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >