Sven Petai wrote: are there any patches that take the gettimeofday() calls and replace them with something that is cheap such as only doing every 10th one and just returning the last value ++ 1 uSec for the other ones.. a ktrace of Mysql shows a LOT of gettimeofday() calls. >On Tuesday 09 May 2006 03:42, Kris Kennaway wrote: > > >>On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 03:34:59AM +0300, Sven Petai wrote: >> >> >>>>Hmm, with this patch mysql 4.1 seems to crash at startup. I haven't >>>>yet had time to investigate. Is anyone else seeing this? >>>> >>>> >>>Seems to run fine here with 4.1.18 on amd64, but doesn't seem to make >>>much difference though. >>> >>>I ran the tests again on the 8 core machine with and without rwatsons >>>patch and this time with 6 tests for each setting and generated graphs: >>>http://bsd.ee/~hadara/debug/mysql4/stats.html >>> >>>thr + select smack dynamics with the patch really do look quite >>>interesting >>> >>>PS >>>I'm currently running testround with rwatsons patch + >>>http://people.freebsd.org/~csjp/kern_descrip.c.1145074052.diff + mysqld >>>change davidxu suggested. >>>Are there any other patches out there that I should try ? >>> >>> >>Sorry, I meant >>http://people.freebsd.org/~csjp/sys.mpsafe.fileops.1145896495.diff >>instead of that patch. Also try turning down HZ to 100, and changing >>the wakeup()s to wakeup_one() in sys/filedesc.h. >> >> > >I preformed additional tests with the settings you suggested, >updated graphs are available _at_ >http://bsd.ee/~hadara/debug/mysql4/stats.html > > * with rwatsons patch + mysqld change suggested by davidxu + > http://people.freebsd.org/~csjp/sys.mpsafe.fileops.1145896495.diff > there doesnt seem to be much difference, but in general things seem to be >couple of percent better > mutex profiles for this configuration are available _at_ > with 10 smack threads: >http://bsd.ee/~hadara/debug/mysql4/freebsd_cur_ps2/mutex_freebsd_cur2_p2-select_10_10000.txt > with 100 smack threads: >http://bsd.ee/~hadara/debug/mysql4/freebsd_cur_ps2/mutex_freebsd_cur_p2-select_100_1000.txt > > * second run was with same patches, but HZ set to 100 > this helps performance a lot but creates large fluxuations in select results >with >20 threads + thr, sometimes difference between 2 runs with same >settings was 10000+ q/s > >I'm currently still testing wakeup() -> wakeup_one() suggestion. > >In addition I did full testrun on linux to see how much this hardware >is really capable of... graphs for that are available on the stats page too. >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-current_at_freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe_at_freebsd.org" > >Received on Tue May 09 2006 - 15:35:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:55 UTC