Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:07:43 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Cc: Nick Evans <nevans@talkpoint.com>, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mantaining turnstile aligned to 128 bytes in i386 CPUs Message-ID: <200701161607.43725.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20070116154258.568e1aaf@pleiades.nextvenue.com> References: <3bbf2fe10607250813w8ff9e34pc505bf290e71758@mail.gmail.com> <3bbf2fe10701160851r79b04464m2cbdbb7f644b22b6@mail.gmail.com> <20070116154258.568e1aaf@pleiades.nextvenue.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday 16 January 2007 15:42, Nick Evans wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:51:03 +0100 > "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > 2006/7/28, Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>: > > > > > > After some thinking, I think it's better using init/fini methods > > > (since they hide the sizeof(struct turnstile) with size parameter). > > > > > > Feedbacks and comments are welcome: > > > http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/uma_sync_init.diff > > > > [CC'ed all the interested people] > > > > Even if a long time is passed I did some benchmarks based on ebizzy tool. > > This program claims to reproduce a real httpd server behaviour and is > > used into the Linux world for benchmarks, AFAIK. > > I think that results of the comparison on this patch is very > > interesting, and I think it worths a commit :) > > I think that results can be even better on a Xeon machine (I had no > > chance to reproduce this on some of these). > > (Results taken in consideration have been measured after some starts, > > in order to minimize caching differences). > > > > The patch: > > http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/ts-sq/ts-sq.diff > > > > The benchmark results: > > http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/ts-sq/ts-sq.benchmark > > > > The kernel options file: > > http://users.gufi.org/~rookie/works/patches/ts-sq/CURRENT > > > > For any information, comment, etc. please feel free to contact me. > > > > Attilio > > > > > > -- > > Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein > > _______________________________________________ > > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > > Some preliminary results: > > PREEMPTION: 4BSD, Quad P3-Xeon, 2GB ram > > pre-patch > > 1. 176.36 real 703.75 user 0.01 sys > 2. 176.73 real 704.34 user 0.03 sys > 3. 176.49 real 703.72 user 0.04 sys > 4. 175.81 real 701.36 user 0.03 sys > 5. 176.57 real 700.98 user 0.02 sys > > post-patch > > 1. 179.17 real 714.39 user 0.01 sys > 2. 178.33 real 711.50 user 0.04 sys > 3. 178.32 real 711.04 user 0.03 sys > 4. 177.34 real 707.51 user 0.03 sys > 5. 178.25 real 710.17 user 0.03 sys What did you use to do your benchmark? Also, have you tried adjusting UMA_ALIGN_SYNC (maybe use 64 - 1)? -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200701161607.43725.jhb>