Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2007 03:29:48 +0300 From: "Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri" <almarrie@gmail.com> To: "Jeff Roberson" <jroberson@chesapeake.net> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for testers, significant sched_lock patch. Message-ID: <499c70c0706031729t6a4f6b1cubf0ac50b3963036b@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20070531232525.X799@10.0.0.1> References: <20070531232525.X799@10.0.0.1>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 6/1/07, Jeff Roberson <jroberson@chesapeake.net> wrote: > I am going to commit a patch that goes significantly towards decomposing > the scheduler lock into per-cpu scheduler locks. Before this, I would > like it if a few more people would run it under more circumstances than I > have. The patch is available at: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~jeff/threadlock.diff > > So far Kris Kennaway and myself have tested it fairly thoroughly on amd64 > machines with 1-8 processors. We've mainly done various benchmarks as > well as Peter Holm's stress2 suite. It has survived our testing so this > isn't totally unstable code. I would like it if more people would test > on any other architecture you have available. I have also tested with > 4BSD and ULE with and without INVARIANTS and WITNESS. > > This patch should have 0 or almost 0 effect on performance. It sets the > stage for a drop-in replacement for ULE that has per-cpu run queue locks. > That scheduler has a sometimes dramatic effect on performance, depending > on the workload. I'm mostly looking for regressions here and not any > particular perf impact. > > Any questions on the design of the approach should be directed at the > arch@ topics on the subject. > > Thanks, > Jeff I wish we could try it in i386, do you have plans to do it? -- Regards, -Abdullah Ibn Hamad Al-Marri Arab Portal http://www.WeArab.Net/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?499c70c0706031729t6a4f6b1cubf0ac50b3963036b>