Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2015 16:36:48 -0400 From: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com>, d@delphij.net, jkim@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: RELENG_10 performance regression (was Re: 35-40% performance drop releng9 vs releng10 openvpn Message-ID: <550DD660.7030203@sentex.net> In-Reply-To: <20150321184238.GO2379@kib.kiev.ua> References: <5509D6C6.4050204@sentex.net> <20150318211457.GL51048@funkthat.com> <550B6950.8060806@sentex.net> <550C5AAF.9060502@sentex.net> <550C8AEE.4090408@sentex.net> <550CB306.7030405@delphij.net> <20150321001559.GB2379@kib.kiev.ua> <550CBF80.6030809@sentex.net> <550D93C7.9080709@FreeBSD.org> <550DB4B2.7080603@sentex.net> <20150321184238.GO2379@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/21/2015 2:42 PM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > It seems to be a consequnce of the code from r222869. The test_tsc() > does not trust the P-state invariant report and explicitely check for > the family. Your CPU family is 0x14, while code only bumps TSC priority > for family 0x15+. > > Currently, tsc_is_invariant is set when CPU reports AMDPM_TSC_INVARIANT, > or for some models. Should we bump TSC timecounter priority is smp > test passed and AMDPM_TSC_INVARIANT is set ? > > For now, you could just set TSC as timecounter. > > Thanks, changing to kern.timecounter.hardware=TSC also brings back performance to where it was ---Mike -- ------------------- Mike Tancsa, tel +1 519 651 3400 Sentex Communications, mike@sentex.net Providing Internet services since 1994 www.sentex.net Cambridge, Ontario Canada http://www.tancsa.com/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?550DD660.7030203>