Re: Switch pfil(9) to rmlocks
- From: Max Laier <max@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:43:02 +0100
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 don't yet, but will see if I can collect some data later today. The
main reason for the switch is shortcomings in rwlock's (not)
implementation of reader recursion as discussed in -arch "rwlocks,
correctness over speed." rmlocks do that correctly, afaiu.
Unless an artificial no-op hook is used, I don't expect to see significant
performance gain, however. All current pfil(9) consumer need some form
of synchronization of their own, which will probably nullify the gain
from rmlocks.
--
/"\ Best regards, | mlaier@xxxxxxxxxxx
\ / Max Laier | ICQ #67774661
X http://pf4freebsd.love2party.net/ | mlaier@EFnet
/ \ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Against HTML Mail and News
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
- References:
- Switch pfil(9) to rmlocks
- From: Max Laier
- Re: Switch pfil(9) to rmlocks
- From: Robert Watson
- Switch pfil(9) to rmlocks
- Prev by Date: Re: Switch pfil(9) to rmlocks
- Next by Date: Broadcom NetXtreme II BMC5708 no carrier
- Previous by thread: Re: Switch pfil(9) to rmlocks
- Next by thread: Re: Switch pfil(9) to rmlocks
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
