Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 12:39:17 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Stanislav Sedov <stas@freebsd.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com>, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>, "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Peformance issues with r278325 Message-ID: <2326466.jJrZ2mpkPP@ralph.baldwin.cx> In-Reply-To: <A6D0C094-9402-49D6-832D-4BA9C2A7384F@FreeBSD.org> References: <FA50A68E-7F3D-4361-8A8A-EB7F97EF3D00@FreeBSD.org> <8EE51E0E-41F4-4B5A-A755-B58E8E1D1776@FreeBSD.org> <A6D0C094-9402-49D6-832D-4BA9C2A7384F@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Friday, March 18, 2016 12:01:37 PM Stanislav Sedov wrote: > > > On Mar 18, 2016, at 11:16 AM, Stanislav Sedov <stas@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > FWIW we are currently testing the delay '1' change. Unfortunately, the test is > > not easy to repeat (we didn't find a synthetic one yet that results in the same > > outcome), so it does take more time that I would like. Will follow up with the > > results. > > > > We did try HEAD as well a while ago, and although it exhibited the same pattern. > > However it did not utilize the x2apic unfortunately, as it does seem to be disables > > in the BIOS (FreeBSD reports it being disables in the DMAR table). > > > > Thanks for looking into it! > > > > Replying to my own message. > > The `delay 1` test was a success, we were not able to reproduce the same issues > as we had with a 5us delay in that loop. So perhaps we should commit the delay > change into stable/10 instead of reverting the code altogether (I assume the original > change was done to solve a real issue?). Ok, I will commit this to HEAD today. Thanks! -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2326466.jJrZ2mpkPP>