Andrew,
I got 5250 Req/s with your locks-sem.patch on normal Apache.
It is good performance on normal Apache.
Andrew Morton writes:
> Kouichi, could you please test the performance of this on
> your 8-way with Apache+fcntl serialisation? (the normal
> Apache). Please use 2.4.0-test10-pre5, not 2.4.0-test10.
> Something has gone funny with test10 and I'm getting much
> lower rates.
Followings are the recent data with/without serialization.
w/ serialize w/o serialize
240t10pre5 2237 5358
240t10pre5+P2 5253 5355**
240t10pre5+P3 --- NG
240t10pre5+locksem 5250 ---
**: once we found deadlock
NG: cannot complete measurement
--: we've not measured.
Normal apache on various kernel setting as follows:
> test8 5287 <-- best performance
> test10-pre5+P2 5258
> 240t10pre5+locksem 5250
> test9+P2 5243
> test9+mypatch 5192 <-- a little bit worse
> test10-pre5+P1 5187
> test1 3702 <-- no good scalability
> test10-pre5 2255 <-- negative scalability
> test9 2193
We also did durability test of 2.4.0-test10-pre5. Unfortunately
enough, we didn't successfully complete the test of Apache w/o
serialization (-DSINGLE_LISTEN_UNSERIALIZED_ACCEPT), it couldn't
continue to run for a night. The kernel got complete deadlock.
The message is:
"Unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference NMI watchdog detected LOCKUP on
CPU1."
Yes, obviously it's not Andrew's problem, that is genuine test10-pre5.
Hidden bugs are awakened by removing serialization.
If the bug is same as what I observed, It is NULL pointer dereference
on run-queue list.
--
Computer Systems Laboratory, Fujitsu Labs.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
