Worth making the sysctls so they can be tuned the the HW / use case?
On 08/04/2018 17:34, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
Date: Sun Apr 8 16:34:10 2018
New Revision: 332285
locks: tweak backoff a little bit
Previous limits were chosen when locking primitives had spurious lock
Flipping the starting point to 1 (or rather 2 as the first call shifts it)
provides a modest win when mild contention is seen while not hurting worse
cases. Tested on a bunch of one, two and four socket old and new systems
(Westmere, Skylake, Threadreaper and others) by doing concurrent page faults,
buildkernel/buildworld and other stuff (although not all systems got all the
Another thing is the upper limit. It is semi-arbitrarily chosen as it was
getting out of hand for slightly less small systems (e.g. a 128-thread one).
Note that backoff is fundamentally a speculative bandaid and this change just
makes it fit a little bit better. It remains completely oblivious to the
hardware topology or the contention pattern. This is being experimented with.
--- head/sys/kern/subr_lock.c Sun Apr 8 16:29:24 2018 (r332284)
+++ head/sys/kern/subr_lock.c Sun Apr 8 16:34:10 2018 (r332285)
@@ -156,8 +156,10 @@ void
lock_delay_default_init(struct lock_delay_config *lc)
- lc->base = lock_roundup_2(mp_ncpus) / 4;
- lc->max = lc->base * 1024;
+ lc->base = 1;
+ lc->max = lock_roundup_2(mp_ncpus) * 256;
+ if (lc->max > 32678)
+ lc->max = 32678;
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"