Re: Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain sockets)
- From: Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:54:06 +0100 (BST)
On Wed, 10 May 2006, David Xu wrote:
Fixing one of big lock contentions is not enough, you have to fix them all, it is easy to see that a second contention becomes a top one. :-)
So I guess the real question is: do we want to merge the UNIX domain socket locking work? The MySQL gains sound good, the performance drop under very high load seems problematic, and there are more general questions about performance with other workloads.
Maintaining this patch for a month or so is no problem, but as the tree changes it will get harder.
Robert N M Watson
_______________________________________________
freebsd-performance@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain sockets)
- From: Robert Watson
- Re: Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain sockets)
- From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey
- Re: Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain sockets)
- From: Kris Kennaway
- Re: Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain sockets)
- From: David Xu
- Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain sockets)
- Prev by Date: Re: Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain sockets )
- Next by Date: enabling hyper-threading on intel dual-core
- Previous by thread: Re: Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain sockets)
- Next by thread: Re: Fine-grained locking for POSIX local sockets (UNIX domain sockets)
- Index(es):