Re: Progress on scaling of FreeBSD on 8 CPU systems

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:

On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:00:35PM -0700, Coleman Kane wrote:

What does the performance curve look like for the in-CVS 7-CURRENT tree with 4BSD or ULE ? How do those stand up against the Linux SMP scheduler for scalability. It would be nice to see the comparison displayed to see what the performance improvements of the aforementioned patch were realized to. This would likely be a nice graphics for the SMPng project page, BTW...

There are graphs of this on Jeff's blog, referenced in that URL. Fixing filedesc locking makes a HUGE difference.

I think the real message of all this is that our locking strategy is basically pretty reasonable for the paths exercised by this (and quite a few) workloads, but our low-level scheduler and locking primitives need a lot of refinement. The next step here is to look at the impact of these changes (individually and together) with other hardware configurations and other workloads. On the hardware side, I'd very much like to see measurements done on that rather nasty generation of Intel Xeon P4's where the costs of mutexes were astronomically out of proportion with other operation costs, which historically has heavily pessimized ULE due to the additional locking it had (don't know if this still applies).

It would be really great if we could find "workload owners" who would maintain easy-to-run benchmark configurations and also run them regularly on a fixed hardware configuration over a long time publishing results and testing patches. Kris has done this for SQL benchmarks to great effect, giving a nice controlled testing environment for a host of performance-related patches, but SQL is not the be-all and end-all of application workloads, so having others do similar things with other benchmarks would be very helpful.

Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Progress on scaling of FreeBSD on 8 CPU systems
    ... How do those stand up against the Linux SMP scheduler for scalability. ... I think the real message of all this is that our locking strategy is basically pretty reasonable for the paths exercised by this workloads, but our low-level scheduler and locking primitives need a lot of refinement. ... On the hardware side, I'd very much like to see measurements done on that rather nasty generation of Intel Xeon P4's where the costs of mutexes were astronomically out of proportion with other operation costs, which historically has heavily pessimized ULE due to the additional locking it had. ...
    (freebsd-hackers)
  • Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
    ... Anyway, in summary, ULE is about 5-6 % slower than 4BSD for two ... MySQL, on the other hand, is ... ULE is tuned for workloads that benefit from improved affinity. ... The problem with buildworld for ULE is that 4BSD gets basically perfect affinity and perfect balancing because the compiler runs, typically uninterrupted, until it does a blocking disk transaction. ...
    (freebsd-performance)
  • Re: CPU affinity in new ULE scheduler
    ... rely a great deal on how workloads behave and interact. ... anecdotal reports that ULE is better for "interactive" workloads on a busy ... only by measuring will you be able to tell if ULE is better ... per second with scheduler X). ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: ULE vs. 4BSD in RELENG_7
    ... Anyway, in summary, ULE is about 5-6 % slower than 4BSD for two ... help indicate where the deficiency is in the ULE scheduler? ... I'm not sure if Remy subscribes to this list, ... encoding are workloads that do not benefit from affinity. ...
    (freebsd-performance)