From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 29 20:40:55 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36E2216A402 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:40:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.247]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E30F613C4C2 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:40:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from asmrookie@gmail.com) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c24so287715ana for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:40:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=dZZodnruKG8p8DChALJ/Ie0hyV53cHpShsOFCMjYZw8C6962QKf6AZw/B4R7jgebfG+MnNFvPHFouSpT4kt7iKjLjBTaww/aUyLlLd5in5c/zwNUHcUWz53RAJzO3b3KCa0eeKhLnAmVC5I1oEDs9lHMrmr7ZzH00INLaFs5G7I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=eX0Nc4KC0A5yhLZqKvCvMFMOC3gTXYDO5xg9w7XoLmtti0YN/FBwNwrClBXH2XsIkDwM4+QwOvuVfnYigRm4pQw4G/foaWN6L3DjiJeLDQZK4Q0oGy83fxJw2lbguYMQq/ZAAZ31SlRB2JAwmlRU/L23HRrDjnAN4MnZ3OvcCdM= Received: by 10.100.10.20 with SMTP id 20mr823302anj.1175200853656; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.191.1 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:40:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10703291340s2e58396k254f5c2671a605aa@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:40:53 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" Sender: asmrookie@gmail.com To: "Kris Kennaway" In-Reply-To: <20070329203352.GA73837@xor.obsecurity.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <200703281955.l2SJt7Ua086062@repoman.freebsd.org> <460AE766.6050409@frebsd.org> <20070329203352.GA73837@xor.obsecurity.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 54e1f340f6a29101 Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras Subject: Re: malloc(3) (hopefully) set for 7.0 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: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:40:55 -0000 2007/3/29, Kris Kennaway : > On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 07:51:56PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote: > > Jason Evans wrote: > > > > > I have developed some novel algorithms for essentially eliminating > > > thread contention on SMP systems, but it is too late in the development > > > cycle to introduce such changes (not to mention that I lack the hardware > > > to evaluate the algorithms). Thanks again for your patience and > > > support. Please let me know if I can be of help in diagnosing suspected > > > malloc issues. > > > > First, thanks :) > > > > Second, as a user, I'd really like if you could manage to implement > > those ideas before 7.0, and here's why: > > > > - The standard for new servers here is 4 cores (in various socket > > arrangements), and we're not at all high-tech. This is likely to go up. > > - If you include hyperthreading, even all *desktops* are SMPs! In short, > > even including desktops, I haven't installed a UP kernel in about a year. > > - It's too long to wait for 8.0 for something as important as this. As > > far as I can see, 7.0 will be one of the "break as many things as you > > need" releases (in the "good" sense, of course), so why not go for it. > > Judging from past releases, "even" releases (4.x, 6.x) have been the > > ones people trusted the most, so if you do get a glitch in 7.0 it won't > > be as bad :) (of course, you can fix it in 7.1 :) ) > > > > Maybe you could borrow the 8CPU machine used for MySQL / filedesc tuning > > jeffr and others have been using (of course, once they've finished...)? > > I will be happy to (continue to) work with Jason on testing his > changes, but there appears to be no urgent need for this: the mysql > benchmark specifically shows that jemalloc scales well on 8 CPUs. In > fact, the scalability problem seen on Linux turned out to be precisely > because of poor scaling of glibc malloc > > http://ozlabs.org/~anton/linux/sysbench/ Well, I'm not sure, since this test refers to core=4 while your tests were using a lot of more threads... Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein