From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 29 16:30:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mass.cdrom.com (mg135-034.ricochet.net [204.179.135.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62E4B37B7A7 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:29:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Received: from mass.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA07919; Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:33:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <200003300033.QAA07919@mass.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Matthew Dillon Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: SMP buildworld times / performance tests In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 29 Mar 2000 15:01:36 PST." <200003292301.PAA65915@apollo.backplane.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 16:33:36 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > For the single-process (1-fork) case, syscall overhead improved > moderately from 1.6 uS in 4.0 to 1.3 uS in 5.0. I think the marked > improvement in the competing-cpu's case is due to the movement of the > MP lock inward somewhat (even for syscalls that aren't MP safe), > the removal of a considerable number of unnecessary 'lock'ed instructions, > and the removal of the cpl lock (which benefits spl*() code as well as > syscall/interrupt code). > > I got similar results for calling sigprocmask(): You should be able to remove the splhigh() from sigprocmask and run it MPSAFE. At least, I can't find a reason not to (and it works here, yes). -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message