From: Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@sequent.com>
To: Mark Hahn <hahn@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Scalable FD Management using Read-Copy-Update
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 14:58:09 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20010417145809.A21310@in.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20010409201311.D9013@in.ibm.com> <Pine.LNX.4.10.10104161140190.7022-100000@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10104161140190.7022-100000@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca>; from hahn@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca on Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:16:25PM -0400
Hi Mike,
[I am not sure if my earlier mail from lycos went out or not, if
it did, I apologize]
On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 12:16:25PM -0400, Mark Hahn wrote:
> > The improvement in performance while runnig "chat" benchmark
> > (from http://lbs.sourceforge.net/) is about 30% in average throughput.
>
> isn't this a solution in search of a problem?
> does it make sense to redesign parts of the kernel for the sole
> purpose of making a completely unrealistic benchmark run faster?
Irrespective of the usefulness of the "chat" benchmark, it seems
that there is a problem of scalability as long as CLONE_FILES is
supported. John Hawkes (SGI) posted some nasty numbers on a
32 CPU mips machine in the lse-tech list some time ago.
>
> (the chat "benchmark" is a simple pingpong load-generator; it is
> not in the same category as, say, specweb, since it does not do *any*
> realistic (nonlocal) IO. the numbers "chat" returns are interesting,
> but not indicative of any problem; perhaps even less than lmbench
> components.)
"chat" results for large numbers of CPUs is indicative of a problem -
if a large number of threads share the file_struct through
CLONE_FILES, the performance of the application will deteriorate
beyond 8 CPUs (going by John's numbers). It also indicates how
sensitive can performance be to write access of shared-memory
locations like spin-waiting locks.
Thanks
Dipankar
--
Dipankar Sarma (dipankar@sequent.com)
IBM Linux Technology Center
IBM Software Lab, Bangalore, India.
Project Page: http://lse.sourceforge.net
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-04-17 9:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-04-09 14:43 [RFC][PATCH] Scalable FD Management using Read-Copy-Update Maneesh Soni
2001-04-12 1:29 ` Anton Blanchard
2001-04-12 15:43 ` [Lse-tech] " Maneesh Soni
2001-04-12 15:51 ` Anton Blanchard
2001-04-17 10:49 ` Scalable FD Management Maneesh Soni
2001-04-17 14:36 ` Andi Kleen
2001-04-12 18:23 ` [Lse-tech] Re: [RFC][PATCH] Scalable FD Management using Read-Copy-Update John Hawkes
2001-04-16 16:16 ` Mark Hahn
2001-04-17 9:28 ` Dipankar Sarma [this message]
2001-04-17 16:59 ` Mark Hahn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20010417145809.A21310@in.ibm.com \
--to=dipankar@sequent.com \
--cc=hahn@coffee.psychology.mcmaster.ca \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.