atom feed65 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-smpRe: SMP meeting summary
FromSent OnAttachments
Jason EvansJun 24, 2000 11:56 pm 
Daniel EischenJun 25, 2000 6:58 am 
Terry LambertJun 25, 2000 10:12 am 
Terry LambertJun 25, 2000 10:36 am 
Julian ElischerJun 25, 2000 10:41 am 
Poul-Henning KampJun 25, 2000 11:07 am 
Nate WilliamsJun 25, 2000 9:41 pm 
Frank MayharJun 25, 2000 11:27 pm 
Frank MayharJun 25, 2000 11:31 pm 
Luoqi ChenJun 26, 2000 9:46 am 
Arun SharmaJun 26, 2000 9:47 am 
Jason EvansJun 26, 2000 11:06 am 
Matthew DillonJun 26, 2000 12:26 pm 
Matthew DillonJun 26, 2000 12:48 pm 
John SconiersJun 26, 2000 12:56 pm 
Matthew DillonJun 26, 2000 1:07 pm 
Luoqi ChenJun 26, 2000 1:13 pm 
Doug RabsonJun 26, 2000 1:26 pm 
Jason EvansJun 26, 2000 2:56 pm 
Jason EvansJun 26, 2000 3:14 pm 
Daniel EischenJun 26, 2000 4:59 pm 
Luoqi ChenJun 26, 2000 7:14 pm 
Jason EvansJun 26, 2000 7:55 pm 
Joe EykholtJun 26, 2000 8:09 pm 
Greg LeheyJun 27, 2000 8:00 pm 
Jason EvansJun 27, 2000 8:25 pm 
Daniel EischenJun 27, 2000 8:26 pm 
Greg LeheyJun 27, 2000 9:59 pm 
Greg LeheyJun 27, 2000 10:11 pm 
Terry LambertJun 28, 2000 4:15 pm 
Terry LambertJun 28, 2000 4:18 pm 
Terry LambertJun 28, 2000 4:37 pm 
Terry LambertJun 28, 2000 4:51 pm 
Arun SharmaJun 28, 2000 9:43 pm 
Greg LeheyJul 2, 2000 7:15 pm 
Daniel EischenJul 3, 2000 3:23 am 
Greg LeheyJul 3, 2000 3:30 am 
Jeroen C. van GelderenJul 3, 2000 7:55 am 
Chuck PatersonJul 3, 2000 8:28 am 
Chuck PatersonJul 3, 2000 8:47 am 
Frank MayharJul 3, 2000 8:49 am 
Greg LeheyJul 3, 2000 4:08 pm 
David ScheidtJul 3, 2000 4:35 pm 
Joe EykholtJul 3, 2000 4:47 pm 
Greg LeheyJul 3, 2000 4:52 pm 
Joe EykholtJul 3, 2000 4:58 pm 
Greg LeheyJul 3, 2000 5:26 pm 
Joe EykholtJul 3, 2000 5:41 pm 
Chuck PatersonJul 3, 2000 7:17 pm 
Daniel EischenJul 3, 2000 7:25 pm 
Daniel EischenJul 3, 2000 7:35 pm 
Greg LeheyJul 3, 2000 7:39 pm 
Daniel EischenJul 3, 2000 7:41 pm 
Chuck PatersonJul 3, 2000 8:40 pm 
Alfred PerlsteinJul 3, 2000 10:08 pm 
Greg LeheyJul 3, 2000 10:37 pm 
Peter WemmJul 4, 2000 2:43 pm 
Greg LeheyJul 4, 2000 3:58 pm 
Peter WemmJul 4, 2000 4:06 pm 
Terry LambertJul 5, 2000 3:38 pm 
Terry LambertJul 5, 2000 4:00 pm 
Terry LambertJul 5, 2000 4:06 pm 
Terry LambertJul 5, 2000 4:10 pm 
Alfred PerlsteinJul 5, 2000 4:29 pm 
Terry LambertJul 6, 2000 4:50 pm 
Subject:Re: SMP meeting summary
From:Frank Mayhar (fra@exit.com)
Date:Jun 25, 2000 11:27:03 pm
List:org.freebsd.freebsd-smp

Nate Williams wrote:

Dynix had no problem with 32 processors. Most SVR4 variants, and I will include Solaris in this, use mutex protection of structures, and start to fall down drastically over 4 processors.

Amazing that you say this, yet I see extremely good results on Solaris boxes up to 64 processors.

Hmm. Do you have numbers?

Suffice it to say that I'm not convinced, nor am I convinced that mutex's around data structures is any different than critical sectioning.

They are essentially the same thing, in that the critical section is almost always the code that deals with a particular (shared) data structure.

I agree with this, but I can state that Unixware doesn't scale well (i.e. linearly) over roughly four (or possibly eight, its been a while since I looked at the numbers) processors. This has been clearly shown by various and sundry benchmarks at Compaq and elsewhere.

I do like the "per-cpu pool" idea, though (although I haven't yet thought it completely through). This would have to, I think, go along with a much stronger CPU affinity for threads and interrupts. I clearly see that, under 4.0, processes pretty much freely migrate from CPU to CPU. This is bad for SMP performance (kills the cache) and would also mean that if a process using a particular structure were on a different CPU, it would have to either move to the proper CPU or move the structure into the per-CPU pool of the CPU it's using. Or use a non-CPU-pool structure.

I'll have to think about this some more. It's an interesting idea, though.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message