From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 12 18:12:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55E5F16A4CE; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:12:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E1C543D41; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:12:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from julian@elischer.org) Received: from interjet.elischer.org ([24.7.73.28]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004041301125301300fkae8e>; Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:12:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.elischer.org [127.0.0.1]) by InterJet.elischer.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA13526; Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:12:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 18:12:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer To: Xin LI In-Reply-To: <20040413005232.GA2959@frontfree.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII cc: FreeBSD current users cc: Tim Robbins Subject: Re: JKH project.. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 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: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 01:12:54 -0000 On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Xin LI wrote: > On Mon, Apr 12, 2004 at 04:50:18PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Apr 2004, Tim Robbins wrote: > [...] > > > On Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 03:51:45PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > > > > > > > the fork syscall has to check the new PID against all exixting pids.. [...] > [...] > > > > Well what you've done seems to fit my definition of "improved".. > > > > anyone got comments? > > If memory serves me right, there's a benchmark done by David Schultz > earlier this year, which is done to compare the NetBSD's PID Allocator > ported by Jun Su[1,2] with Tim's hash based allocator[3] in p4. > > The benchmark report is available here: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~das/pbench/pbench.html Thankyou! it would be nice to see the "benchmarsk run with a larger number of processes, but it looks like both allternatives are an improvement.. > > [1] Jun Su's original patch > http://www.arbornet.org/~junsu/pid.diff > [2] Jun Su's patch I maintained locally to adopt latest -CURRENT changes > http://research.delphij.net/freebsd/pid.diff > [3] Tim's patch in p4 > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=43361 > > There were a discussion in current@ in February, for reference: > > My first post in January as a "Call for testers": > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-January/019940.html > > Jun Su's post about update of his patch: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-February/020503.html > > David Schultz's post of his benchmark: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-February/020807.html > > John's opinion: > http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2004-February/020957.html > > There're many other discussions during this, which is valuable to > read. > > I personally prefered junsu's version as the side effect of the patch > makes pids smaller, however, I'd concur the concerns about simplicity > of code will be a good reason of the final decision. Simplicity is a definite factor. Other people have to be able to maintain what goes in.. > > Cheers, > -- > Xin LI http://www.delphij.net/ > See complete headers for GPG key and other information. > >