Worth making the sysctls so they can be tuned the the HW / use case?

On 08/04/2018 17:34, Mateusz Guzik wrote:
Author: mjg
Date: Sun Apr  8 16:34:10 2018
New Revision: 332285
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/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.


Modified: head/sys/kern/subr_lock.c
--- 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;
#ifdef DDB

svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to