Re: Kernel Support for System Call Performance Monitoring
From: Bosko Milekic (bmilekic_at_technokratis.com)
Date: 06/17/03
- Previous message: Raunchy McSmutbag: "Re: Drawing graphics on terminal"
- In reply to: Yaoping Ruan: "Kernel Support for System Call Performance Monitoring"
- Next in thread: Yaoping Ruan: "Re: Kernel Support for System Call Performance Monitoring"
- Reply: Yaoping Ruan: "Re: Kernel Support for System Call Performance Monitoring"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 20:22:43 -0400 To: Yaoping Ruan <yruan@cs.princeton.edu>
On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 01:20:03PM -0400, Yaoping Ruan wrote:
> We have been working on improving Web server performance on
> FreeBSD, and think you may be interested in the results and
> techniques we used. Specifically, we focus on the SpecWeb99
> benchmark and the Flash Web Server, and have roughly quadrupled
> its performance. We did this by adding support for a very
> low-cost kernel performance monitoring system, which allowed
> us to find and fix a number of bad interactions between the
> server and the OS. We additionally augmented one of the system
> calls, sendfile, to be more useful for this kind of server.
> We think that our observations may be useful for other servers,
> and may present opportunities for performance improvement in
> FreeBSD.
>
> A paper describing our system can be found at
> http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~yruan/DeBox and we can provide the
> patches we made if anyone's interested. We welcome any comments
> and feedback that you have.
First off, thank you for choosing FreeBSD for your research.
The more effort is put into doing this sort of research, the better it
is for both the academic community and the industry.
I've read your paper and have a few brief notes:
- On DeBox implementation. I understand that the DeBox implementation
is primarily a tool used for tracking down potential application
bottlenecks and so the relative importance of the crudeness of the
implementation is not so high. However, I'm looking at this from
the perspective of introducing DeBox as a permanent option in
FreeBSD, and two immediate problems are:
1) User-visible DeBoxInfo structure has the magic number "5"
PerSleepInfo structs and the magic number "200" CallTrace
structs. It seems that it would be somewhat less crude to turn
the struct arrays in DeBoxInfo into pointers in which case you
have several options. You could provide a library to link
applications compiled for DeBox use with that would take care of
allocating the space in which to store maxSleeps and
maxTrace-worth of memory and hooking the data into resultBuf or
providing the addresses as separate arguments to the
DeBoxControl() system call. For what concerns the kernel, you
could take a similar approach and dynamically pre-allocate the
PerSleepInfo and CallTrace structures, based on the requirements
given by the DeBoxControl system call.
2) The problem of modifying entry-exit paths in function calls.
Admittedly, this is hard, but crudely modifying a select number
of functions to Do The Right Thing for what concerns call tracing
is hard to justify from a general perspective. I don't mean to
spread FUD here; the change you made is totally OK from a
measurement perspective and serves great for the paper, it's just
tougher to integrate this stuff into the mainline code.
- On the Case Study. I was most interested in the sendfile
modifications you talk about and would be interested in seeing
patches. I know that some of the modifications you mention have
already been done in 5.x; Notably, if you have not already, you'll
want to glance at:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/kern/uipc_syscalls.c? \
rev=1.144&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup
(regarding your mapping caching in sf_bufs)
and this [gigantic] thread:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/getmsg.cgi?fetch=12432+15802+ \
/usr/local/www/db/text/2003/freebsd-arch/20030601.freebsd-arch
(subject: sendfile(2) SF_NOPUSH flag proposal on freebsd-arch@, at
least).
You may want to contact Igor Sysoev or other concerned parties in
that thread to show them that you actually have performance results
resulting from such a change.
Finally, I'd like to sort of make a longshot proposal; more of a "if
you have the time" follow-up to your work that someone could be able
to perform, and that would certainly be interesting to see: how all
this works out when forward-ported to FreeBSD 5.x.
> Sincerely
>
> - Yaoping
> yruan@cs.princeton.edu
Regards,
-- Bosko Milekic * bmilekic@technokratis.com * bmilekic@FreeBSD.org TECHNOkRATIS Consulting Services * http://www.technokratis.com/ _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
- Previous message: Raunchy McSmutbag: "Re: Drawing graphics on terminal"
- In reply to: Yaoping Ruan: "Kernel Support for System Call Performance Monitoring"
- Next in thread: Yaoping Ruan: "Re: Kernel Support for System Call Performance Monitoring"
- Reply: Yaoping Ruan: "Re: Kernel Support for System Call Performance Monitoring"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
