Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:40:53 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Ivan Voras <ivoras@fer.hr> Subject: Re: malloc(3) (hopefully) set for 7.0 Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10703291340s2e58396k254f5c2671a605aa@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070329203352.GA73837@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <200703281955.l2SJt7Ua086062@repoman.freebsd.org> <460AE766.6050409@frebsd.org> <eugubt$gf9$1@sea.gmane.org> <20070329203352.GA73837@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2007/3/29, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>: > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10703291340s2e58396k254f5c2671a605aa>