Max Laier wrote:
On Friday 23 November 2007, Robert Watson wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Max Laier wrote:
> > attached is a diff to switch the pfil(9) subsystem to rmlocks, which
> > are more suited for the task. I'd like some exposure before doing
> > the switch, but I don't expect any fallout. This email is going
> > through the patched pfil already - twice.
>
> Max,
>
> Have you done performance measurements that show rmlocks to be a win in
> this scenario? I did some patchs for UNIX domain sockets to replace
> the rwlock there but it appeared not to have a measurable impact on SQL
> benchmarks, presumbaly because the read/write blend wasn't right and/or
> that wasnt a significant source of overhead in the benchmark. I'd
> anticipate a much more measurable improvement for pfil, but would be
> interested in learning how much is seen?
I had to roll an artificial benchmark in order to see a significant change
(attached - it's a hack!).
Using 3 threads on a 4 CPU machine I get the following results:
null hook: ~13% +/- 2
mtx hook: up to 40% [*]
rw hook: ~5% +/- 1
rm hook: ~35% +/- 5
Is that 13%/5%/35% faster or slower or improvement or degradation?
If "rw hook" (using rwlock like we have today?) is 5%, whas is the baseline?
I'm expecting that at least one of these should be a 0%...
Darren
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
