Alexey Popov wrote:
Hi.
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Now FreeBSD 7-STABLE ULE 8-core server without optimized PHP
realpath_cache_size (producing 2000+ lstats per request) can handle
up to ~24 rps as opposed to max. 17 rps without your patch. %sys
never grows over %user with your patch. On the server with optimized
realpath_cache_size there's no visible influence of your patch.
You said "20" before for this configuration, so I'm a bit suspicious
about how seriously to treat your measurements :)
Sorry, my mistake. s/ULE/4BSD.
OK, please compare ULE to ULE with and without my patch (and remembering
to enable the sysctl), and obtain lock profiling traces in both cases
under identical workloads & durations. That is what I need to proceed
with this issue.
Anyway, please obtain another lock profiling trace using the same
conditions as the previous one (same workload & duration, etc), so we
can compare what changed.
OK, I'll make it a little bit later.
Also I tried to find what else is slow in FreeBSD, I tried hwpmc as
module and in kernel, but it fails with error:
pmc: Unknown Intel CPU.
module_register_init: MOD_LOAD (hwpmc, 0xffffffff804833e0,
0xffffffff809338a0) error 78
There are patches you need to enable it on woodcrest. They are in my p4
branch (kris-contention) but I don't have time right now to extract them.
This is related to
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=amd64%2F111994&cat=
and it is impossible to use hwpmc with modern CPUs.
Sounds like it.
Is kgmon profiling usable on FreeBSD 7?
I've never bothered, it is likely to be quite slow, so it can totally
change the workload you are trying to profile.
Kris
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
