Re: Updated fine-grain locking patch for UNIX domain sockets
- From: Robert Watson <rwatson@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 13:45:49 +0100 (BST)
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, David Xu wrote:
I found 5% performance decrease on dual P4, maybe P4 is quite bad when doing atomic operation. ;-) Thanks,
When I've measured, generally, yes, P4 performance has been abysmal for synchronization operations, both atomic operations and CPU-local interrupt disabling, etc.
I suspect rwlocks could use a bit of optimization in the contention case. I've not dug into the code, so I'm not clear how they compare with respect to adaptive behavior.
Robert N M Watson
Computer Laboratory
University of Cambridge
_______________________________________________
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:
- Re: Updated fine-grain locking patch for UNIX domain sockets
- From: Robert Watson
- Re: Updated fine-grain locking patch for UNIX domain sockets
- References:
- Re: Updated fine-grain locking patch for UNIX domain sockets
- From: David Xu
- Re: Updated fine-grain locking patch for UNIX domain sockets
- Prev by Date: Re: MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark
- Next by Date: Re: MySQL 5.0.22 , FreeBSD 6.1-STABLE: Benchmark
- Previous by thread: Re: Updated fine-grain locking patch for UNIX domain sockets
- Next by thread: Re: Updated fine-grain locking patch for UNIX domain sockets
- Index(es):