From owner-freebsd-net Sat Jan 8 11:12:12 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from cichlids.com (as1-018.rp-plus.de [149.221.236.18]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3A9E14DCD for ; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 11:12:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from alex@cichlids.com) Received: from cichlids.cichlids.com (cichlids.cichlids.com [192.168.0.10]) by cichlids.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34616AB92; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 20:12:06 +0100 (CET) Received: (from alex@localhost) by cichlids.cichlids.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA14438; Sat, 8 Jan 2000 20:11:59 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from alex) Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2000 20:11:59 +0100 From: Alexander Langer To: Mohit Aron Cc: weyrich@goodnet.com, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: performance of FreeBSD-current as SMP Message-ID: <20000108201159.A14353@cichlids.cichlids.com> References: <20000108183130.A13891@cichlids.cichlids.com> <200001081806.MAA13508@cs.rice.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <200001081806.MAA13508@cs.rice.edu>; from aron@cs.rice.edu on Sat, Jan 08, 2000 at 12:06:00PM -0600 X-PGP-Fingerprint: 44 28 CA 4C 46 5B D3 A8 A8 E3 BA F3 4E 60 7D 7F X-Verwirrung: Dieser Header dient der allgemeinen Verwirrung. Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Thus spake Mohit Aron (aron@cs.rice.edu): > > Well, it's known that SMP produces this overhead. > > The same is for NT and Linux, if you enable SMP and use only 1 > > prozessor. > them in networking and there's no reason why the case should be any different > for SMP support. That was just an example to show you, that this is the problem of SMP stuff. > Its probably the overhead of lock acquirement/release. Which means the > implementation of locking in FreeBSD needs some improvement. Then do it, if you think, that would not have been optimized as wide as possible. Alex -- I doubt, therefore I might be. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message