From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 19 14:56:53 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F3571065670 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:56:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from channa.kad@gmail.com) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.242]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E008FC18 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:56:52 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from channa.kad@gmail.com) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b6so1467176ana.13 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:56:52 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=tzpICMtoAFNXSWwRwLYwUEMDYJYZ1/bEpcEPJR54dJI=; b=C3AT1Wh9HfwpMJHOBw6K8QkSO7WOpKx0q9GtcKCUFadQkzbhRgNqW+EccVXPDhwJWP zUIwswX4eYkSz131JB8S3NM7He4P/uDzgQnT3UihxQDGrztYV93oypXfPMzTv5Fz0NqI DQv3iPnX+K0Po5jCRnf9SYeAA1cPMVev1Kl5s= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=pngBBgTOjRSgCpQlWF8faHndzccvTQOpMUdLGh7dQNHfD0j8RJz3/+7qIAq1JzF6Om +RE9YhXsO22zbIf2FOMinjXLmmEMcsj0oUvp2zAeVMh+bjgRCTgaBtKov5LV8froYVss OXziROYBMyoFUK8UT1+dRJwRpV/gkJnDDliMo= Received: by 10.65.11.17 with SMTP id o17mr1177471qbi.4.1227106611042; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:56:51 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.156.4 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Nov 2008 06:56:51 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <515c64960811190656i5b103d15s44b0a35a6b9455e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:26:51 +0530 From: Channa To: "Ivan Voras" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <515c64960811190604w4f22e5a0ta4ed07323fcb697d@mail.gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD performance on single CPU. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 14:56:53 -0000 Hi, Thank you very much for your information. I am using current implementation of FreeBSD malloc. I am checking the performance on single CPU machine. I am using it in my own environment i am not using FreeBSD7.0. I disabled the MALLOC_DEBUG option in the malloc implementaton and checked the performance i see no difference the results are the same. ./mallco-test Starting test... Thread -1101005488 adjusted timing: 4.495931 seconds for 1000000 requests of 512 bytes. Could please tell me if anything else needs to be changed.? Thanks in Advance, Channa 2008/11/19 Ivan Voras : > Channa wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am using FreeBSD malloc from the current working branch. >> I hope its jemalloc. >> >> I tested it on a single CPU machine i could get the following results >> >> # ./malloc-test 1024 10000000 4 >> >> Starting test... >> Thread -1096811184 adjusted timing: 102.369100 seconds for 10000000 >> requests of 1024 bytes. >> Thread -1101005488 adjusted timing: 103.212512 seconds for 10000000 >> requests of 1024 bytes. >> Thread -1098908336 adjusted timing: 103.491399 seconds for 10000000 >> requests of 1024 bytes. >> Thread -1094714032 adjusted timing: 103.605124 seconds for 10000000 >> requests of 1024 bytes. >> >> I checked the result in the FreeBSD mailing list link given below: >> >> http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/FreeBSD/current/2005-12/msg00294.html >> >> The jemalloc gives very good results. Is that the performance is good >> only on SMP? >> >> Or on single processor also it should perform well? >> >> But on single CPU i could see bad results. >> >> Could anyone help me out? > > Your message is not very clear but here are some things that might help you: > > 1) -CURRENT has debugging enabled both in kernel and in malloc. You need > to disable both before benchmarking anything. > 2) According to the post you linked, jemalloc should be 1.1 times faster > for single-threaded processes than phkmalloc, on that particular > benchmark. This benefit will probably also be visible on single-CPU > machines. > 3) You don't need to run -CURRENT to get jemalloc - it is also prosent > in 7.0. > >