Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 11:22:12 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: Ewan Todd <ewan@mathcode.net> Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Performance issue Message-ID: <427F9C44.8080704@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20050509172111.GH281@mathcode.net> References: <20050509150018.GF281@mathcode.net> <427F8076.7030105@samsco.org> <20050509170316.GG281@mathcode.net> <427F9890.7010104@samsco.org> <20050509172111.GH281@mathcode.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ewan Todd wrote: >>5.3 ships with SMP turned on, which makes lock operations rather >>expensive on single-processor machines. 4.x does not have SMP >>turned on by default. Would you be able to re-run your test with >>SMP turned off? >> > > > I'm pretty sure there's no SMP in this kernel. > > #cd /usr/src/sys/i386/conf > #fgrep SMP MYKERNEL > # > > GENERIC has no SMP in it, but there's a second "GENERIC" kernel conf > called "SMP", which simply says: > > include GENERIC > options SMP > > However, sysctl seems to show smp not active, but not disabled. Is > that anything to worry about? > > #sysctl -a | grep smp > kern.smp.maxcpus: 1 > kern.smp.active: 0 > kern.smp.disabled: 0 > kern.smp.cpus: 1 > debug.psmpkterrthresh: 2 > > > -e > Bah, you're right, sorry for the confusion. Too many releases in my mind, they all seem like a blur. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?427F9C44.8080704>