[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47E5FAF2.2060508@colorfullife.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 07:38:42 +0100
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
CC: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Nadia Derbey <Nadia.Derbey@...l.net>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Scalability requirements for sysv ipc
Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-03-22 at 15:22 +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
>
>> Mike Galbraith wrote:
>>
>>> Total: 4691827 Total: 3942000
>>>
>>>
>> Thanks. Unfortunately the test was buggy, it bound the tasks to the
>> wrong cpu :-(
>> Could you run it again? Actually 1 cpu and 4 cpus are probably enough.
>>
>
> Sure. (ran as before, hopefully no transcription errors)
>
>
Thanks:
sysv sem:
- 2.6.22 had almost linear scaling (up to 4 cores).
- 2.6.24.3 scales to 2 cpus, then it collapses. with 4 cores, it's 75%
slower than 2.6.22.
sysv msg:
- neither 2.6.22 nor 2.6.24 scale very good. That's more or less
expected, the message queue code contains a few global statistic
counters (msg_hdrs, msg_bytes).
The cleanup of sysv is nice, but IMHO sysv sem should remain scalable -
and a gloal semaphore with IDR can't be as scalable as the RCU protected
array that was used before.
--
Manfred
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists