From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 8 03:47:33 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B23AE16A4CE for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 03:47:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns0.secureanonymous.com (tjhawkins.com [64.232.254.34]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF8043D39 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 03:47:33 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from timh@tjhawkins.com) Received: from cdm-66-76-83-77.fayt.cox-internet.com ([66.76.83.77] helo=yourw92p4bhlzg) by ns0.secureanonymous.com with smtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BXWeU-0000Di-7x for freebsd-smp@freebsd.org; Mon, 07 Jun 2004 21:47:50 -0500 Message-ID: <095501c44d0b$5395c600$6501a8c0@yourw92p4bhlzg> From: To: Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 22:47:28 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - ns0.secureanonymous.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tjhawkins.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 13:29:23 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 Subject: linux vs. freebsd X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 03:47:33 -0000 alot of linux people are claiming freebsd does not scale well on dual = CPUs, and cannot scale past that. Can you please clarify. thanks. From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 8 17:31:03 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFD2E16A4CE for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:31:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp2.sunnyvision.com (smtp2.sunnyvision.com [202.67.155.190]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E053043D31 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 17:31:02 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from billwong@sunnyvision.com) Received: (qmail 19406 invoked by uid 508); 8 Jun 2004 17:31:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO home) (postmaster@smtp2.sunnyvision.com@61.10.219.69) by 0 with SMTP; 8 Jun 2004 17:31:16 -0000 Message-ID: <005901c44d7e$5cf0f5d0$45db0a3d@home> From: "Bill WONG-SV" To: Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2004 01:30:58 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2739.300 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="big5" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 Subject: Problem on Intel E7501CW2 SMP X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 17:31:04 -0000 Dear All, I have a Server box with Intel E7501CW2 with Dual Xeon 2.4G = CPUs, after install with whatever FreeBSD 4.9 / 4.10 / 5.2.1 All version got problem, when i reboot, sometime it will = hang up with panic , the error message will be something like: APIC #3 (.....) Failed....etc... Anyone has got same problems, please advise how to solve it. Thx. Bill From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 8 19:35:17 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 984F016A4D1 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:35:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from bsd.naebunny.net (adsl-67-38-156-22.dsl.dytnoh.ameritech.net [67.38.156.22]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B7A43D4C for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:35:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from derwood@naebunny.net) Received: from derwood2 (unknown [192.168.0.246]) with ESMTP id 2D2052ACCC for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:34:59 -0400 (EDT) From: "Darin" To: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 15:37:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 In-Reply-To: <095501c44d0b$5395c600$6501a8c0@yourw92p4bhlzg> Thread-Index: AcRNXKABvlVXI03uSzK3tsatOXEmvwAMotlw Message-Id: <20040608193459.2D2052ACCC@bsd.naebunny.net> Subject: RE: linux vs. freebsd X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:35:17 -0000 FreeBSD 5.2.1 scales on dual CPUs just fine.. 4.x isnt quite as good. Both versions will go to 8 CPUs if I recall correctly. That being said, I have two dual CPU systems that I run here, and both run 4.9-STABLE with no problems. I never notice any scalability issues. Personally, I'll never go back to Linux. I've been on FreeBSD for over a year now, and I'm quite impressed and pleased with the OS and the communtity. Darin - -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-smp@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-smp@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of timh@tjhawkins.com Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 11:47 PM To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: linux vs. freebsd alot of linux people are claiming freebsd does not scale well on dual CPUs, and cannot scale past that. Can you please clarify. thanks. _______________________________________________ freebsd-smp@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-smp To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-smp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 8 19:46:19 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F18E16A4CE for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:46:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hotmail.com (bay7-f63.bay7.hotmail.com [64.4.11.63]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14EE243D55 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 19:46:19 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from hsoftdev17@hotmail.com) Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 12:46:18 -0700 Received: from 204.60.130.114 by by7fd.bay7.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:46:18 GMT X-Originating-IP: [204.60.130.114] X-Originating-Email: [hsoftdev17@hotmail.com] X-Sender: hsoftdev17@hotmail.com From: "Dave Stephens" To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 15:46:18 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jun 2004 19:46:18.0843 (UTC) FILETIME=[4485C2B0:01C44D91] Subject: RE: linux vs. freebsd X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 19:46:19 -0000 I came from Mandrake Linux after a brief time on Red Hat and I have been using FreeBSD for almost 2 years. It's a very clean and stable system. I would never go back. I run a dual CPU system on 4.9-STABLE with no problems too. I've managed uptimes of nearly 100 days on my SMP system so I would have to say it's very stable. (It runs several web domains, hosts the database for them, and other things as well, so it's not like it just sits around doing nothing all day. :) Dave ----Original Message Follows---- FreeBSD 5.2.1 scales on dual CPUs just fine.. 4.x isnt quite as good. Both versions will go to 8 CPUs if I recall correctly. That being said, I have two dual CPU systems that I run here, and both run 4.9-STABLE with no problems. I never notice any scalability issues. Personally, I'll never go back to Linux. I've been on FreeBSD for over a year now, and I'm quite impressed and pleased with the OS and the communtity. Darin - -----Original Message----- From: owner-freebsd-smp@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-smp@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of timh@tjhawkins.com Sent: Monday, June 07, 2004 11:47 PM To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Subject: linux vs. freebsd alot of linux people are claiming freebsd does not scale well on dual CPUs, and cannot scale past that. Can you please clarify. thanks. _______________________________________________ freebsd-smp@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-smp To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-smp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" _______________________________________________ freebsd-smp@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-smp To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-smp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" _________________________________________________________________ Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/ From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 8 20:02:34 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7BE116A4CE for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:02:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from multiplay.co.uk (www1.multiplay.co.uk [212.42.16.7]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40C7F43D31 for ; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 20:02:32 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from vader ([212.135.219.179]) by multiplay.co.uk (multiplay.co.uk [212.42.16.7]) (MDaemon.PRO.v7.1.0.R) with ESMTP id md50000273619.msg for ; Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:59:42 +0100 Message-ID: <00e101c44d93$73ee60f0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk> From: "Steven Hartland" To: "Dave Stephens" , References: Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2004 21:01:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Spam-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:59:42 +0100 (not processed: message from valid local sender) X-MDRemoteIP: 212.135.219.179 X-Return-Path: killing@multiplay.co.uk X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-MDAV-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:59:46 +0100 Subject: Re: linux vs. freebsd X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 20:02:35 -0000 Same here performance on dual cpu / quad ( dual HT ) have not been a problem. Even seen over 260 days uptime on a machine we lost track of till we went though asset tracking :P That's on 5.1 and 5.2.1. Ease of maintenance clear concrete releases and no new fangled ( restrictive ) install gui's are what keep us using FreeBSD. Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Stephens" To: Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 8:46 PM Subject: RE: linux vs. freebsd > I came from Mandrake Linux after a brief time on Red Hat and I have been > using FreeBSD for almost 2 years. It's a very clean and stable system. I > would never go back. > > I run a dual CPU system on 4.9-STABLE with no problems too. I've managed > uptimes of nearly 100 days on my SMP system so I would have to say it's very > stable. (It runs several web domains, hosts the database for them, and > other things as well, so it's not like it just sits around doing nothing all > day. :) ================================================ This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137 or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk. From owner-freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 12 20:55:21 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6DF416A4CE for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:55:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from blake.polstra.com (blake.polstra.com [64.81.189.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4132D43D1D for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:55:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from strings.polstra.com (dsl081-189-067.sea1.dsl.speakeasy.net [64.81.189.67]) by blake.polstra.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i5CKt5F3013093 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:55:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@strings.polstra.com) Received: (from jdp@localhost) by strings.polstra.com (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i5CKt5e1045519 for freebsd-smp@freebsd.org; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:55:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.5 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:55:05 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra To: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.498726, version=0.14.5 Subject: Question about cv_signal(9) X-BeenThere: freebsd-smp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD SMP implementation group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:55:21 -0000 I have a question about cv_signal(9). As you know, cv_wait(9) is passed a mutex which the caller must hold at the time of the call. So far, so good. But I see from the man page and from asserts in the code that this same mutex must be held when calling cv_signal. That's not required by other condition variable implementations I've seen (for example: POSIX threads and Modula-3 threads), and I'm wondering whether it's really necessary in the FreeBSD kernel's implementation. The requirement is bad because it eliminates the simplest and most common optimization that users of condition variables can take advantage of. Consider some typical wakeup code consistent with the requirement that the mutex be held: mtx_lock(mutex); if (we want to signal the waiter) { set some shared state variables; cv_signal(cv); } mtx_unlock(mutex); When cv_signal is called, the waiter will wake up and cv_wait() will immediately try to re-acquire the mutex. But the caller of cv_signal still holds the mutex, so the waiter will again block until the waker gets around to executing mtx_unlock(mutex). That's two context switches for every wakeup. The standard optimization looks like this: int wake_up; wake_up = 0; mtx_lock(mutex); if (we want to signal the waiter) { set some shared state variables; wake_up = 1; } mtx_unlock(mutex); if (wake_up) cv_signal(cv); This requires only a single context switch per wakeup -- a big win. But it's not allowed, according to the cv_signal(9) man page. >From briefly looking at the implementation, I can't see why the mutex has to be held by the caller of cv_signal. It seems like this is an arbitrary requirement. If so, I'd like to eliminate it. Comments? John PS - The optimization above and several others are described in "An Introduction to Programming with Threads," by Andrew D. Birrell: http://gatekeeper.dec.com/pub/DEC/SRC/research-reports/abstracts/src-rr-035.html