From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 25 18:30:36 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9EE2CD; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:30:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-we0-x22f.google.com (mail-we0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22f]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2E512DD; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 18:30:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-we0-f175.google.com with SMTP id t11so2869039wey.6 for ; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:30:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=6RujqdcKsCG2kK//nsD7ha8p6gsRTJe7sY3Fg3CkRfQ=; b=A/nn/8W3LOcKlFRytkrYVeGxeNLmFw54vwgYEBFtVs9eC/oViQkfxOhA9Co9aTYBc5 ue8P2MqPqOnp1b++BH3wViR1l2cjr7ehpMJmLmJWvSLzbS3l6PJMapf7OA8HPEJlqcDs TjL727vE0or4ZUYhVMuN//6waOnJLiOfNAd1WktRQqI/rnbGF4Xy4FRIdYq/Xxoyrxe3 5nR80mdlyPnEcET4bfH66YWfgmEFzZ4wYE4ZLkkPA8Dn+xYjdxHjuzhSug5KX5N5PQiH /3chKa7z27qr1h1lM1eeNqbnP6wDsMjhp66LhsLCXBUHcCmHKXNS/f364WTo8rrNNJZ6 AHMw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.93.133 with SMTP id cu5mr77829059wjb.56.1366914634787; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:30:34 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.217.58.138 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:30:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <5178F72F.90008@freebsd.org> References: <5178F72F.90008@freebsd.org> Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:30:34 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: SQY0pn_R5Fs2nhMgxiqXJSxXjZ0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: forwarding/ipfw/pf evolution (in pps) on -current From: Adrian Chadd To: Andre Oppermann Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Olivier_Cochard=2DLabb=E9?= , "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" , Sami Halabi X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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, 25 Apr 2013 18:30:36 -0000 On 25 April 2013 02:28, Andre Oppermann wrote: > Again one has to be really careful drawing any firm conclusions from this > as it was measured on a Pentium4 and UP kernel (GENERIC would add WITNESS > and INVARIANT overhead as well). > > The Pentium4 is about the worst micro-architecture when it comes to locks > and easily regresses. At the same time modern Intel Core i[3-7] and AMD64 > may actually improve with these changes. Unless more recent micro-archs > have been shown to exhibit the same regression we can't claim this change > was bad (other than for Pentium4). Sure, but he's done the heavy lifting. It'll be interesting to compare these results on a variety of platforms, not just the modern desktop/server style CPUs. Eg, if someone has the time, spinning this stuff up on the multi-core MIPS stuff in the netperf cluster (that's supposed to be a network forwarding engine) would be nice. And to be honest - having a set of performance checks for the same SVN revision but different physical machines is a good comparison point. It may be that we can start classifying different kinds of platform silliness from this which could lead to some better coding guidelines. Adrian