Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 06 Jun 2002 20:02:22 -0400 (EDT)
From:      John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
To:        j mckitrick <jcm@FreeBSD-uk.eu.org>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   RE: SMP/5.0 performance on single CPU?
Message-ID:  <XFMail.20020606200222.jhb@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20020606230545.A78993@dogma.freebsd-uk.eu.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On 06-Jun-2002 j mckitrick wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm sure the SMP features along with removal of the Big Giant Lock (TM)
> are designed to sacrifice as little performance as possible across the
> board.  In practical terms, will a 5.0 kernel without SMP have any
> performance loss at all on a single CPU machine compared with the 4.x
> kernel we use now?  I once read here on one of these lists that the
> Solaris fine-grained locking was great for SMP, but was a lot of
> overhead for single CPU machines (correct me if I misunderstood).

At the moment it is slower because interrupts are effectively blocked in
almost all of the kernel.  However, the SMP work is still in progress and
it will get better as time goes on.  One thing to note is that in 4.x,
if we are in the networking code, for example, we block all network
interrupts.  When the more-finely grained locking is implemented in 5.x,
if we are working on network card A, we won't be effectively blocking
network interrupts on card B, while in 4.x we would be blocking interrupts
on card B.  However, most of the kernel is still under Giant and so this
does not apply to 5.0 yet.

-- 

John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20020606200222.jhb>