Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:33:33 +0000 From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Julian Elischer <julian@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC how to use kernel procs/threads efficiently Message-ID: <YQXPR0101MB0997EA8AA84E4F8987FC417DDD750@YQXPR0101MB0997.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> In-Reply-To: <e4a4c6ff-5ce0-b979-ab84-32136acdcba6@freebsd.org> References: <YQXPR0101MB099752292CCAC9E8A72C1E96DD710@YQXPR0101MB0997.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <1507317060.86205.268.camel@freebsd.org> <YQXPR0101MB0997FAE97A7E42BCF570AA7EDD740@YQXPR0101MB0997.CANPRD01.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>, <e4a4c6ff-5ce0-b979-ab84-32136acdcba6@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Julian Elischer wrote: [stuff snipped] >On 10/10/17 4:25 am, Rick Macklem wrote: >> --> As such, having a fixed reasonable # of threads is probably the best >> that can be done. >> - The current patch has the # of threads as a sysctl with a defau= lt of 32. >why not set it to ncpu or something? Well, each of these threads will do an RPC, which means a couple of short bursts of CPU and then sleep the rest of the time waiting for the RPC reply to come back from the Data Server. As such, it would seem to me that you would want a lot more threads than CPUs on the machine? However, setting the default to "N * ncpu" seems better than just a fixed "= 32" to me. (For nfsd, the current default is 8 * ncpu, so maybe that is a good default for this too?) What do you think? Thanks for the comment, rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?YQXPR0101MB0997EA8AA84E4F8987FC417DDD750>