On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 05:42:36PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On 01/15/15 16:58, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:51:00PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > > >> On 01/15/15 16:46, Slawa Olhovchenkov wrote: > >>> On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 04:37:51PM +0100, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > >>> > >>> Only stability impovement? > >>> Or performance too? > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Stability improvement mostly. Should not affect performance from what I > >> know. Some changes are made about when and how we can select a different > >> callback CPU for a callout callback. Try reading the updated timeout(9) > > > > I am not kernel guru and can't be draw a conclusion from manual page. > > > >> man manual page first. Maybe it answers your question. Else feel free to > >> ask here. > > > > As I understand performance for massive TCP connections (tens of > > thousands connections) will be same, no improvement, no degraded? > > (very high lock congestion on TCP timers working). > > Hi, > > There is no difference in memory footprint per TCP connection. > > There is no significant different in the amount of code executed when a > callout is started/stopped or reset. > > There might be a reduction in the number of times the spinlocks inside > the callout subsystem are locked/unlocked, due to some simplifications > made and checks for redundant locking. > > The changes are mainly about closing some races in the callout subsystem > and cornercases towards the TCP/IP stack which use callouts. > > There is a patch for the TCP/IP stack coming possibly next week to take > advantage of the new callout_drain_async() function. It is not ready > yet, and I'm waiting for the current callout patch to settle first.
Thanks. I am going to try this patch in 10-STABLE branch. _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"