Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 25 Feb 2007 20:44:38 +0300 | From | Evgeniy Polyakov <> | Subject | Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3 |
| |
On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 06:23:38PM +0100, Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote: > > * Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 10:13:55PM +0100, Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote: > > > this is the v3 release of the syslet/threadlet subsystem: > > > > > > http://redhat.com/~mingo/syslet-patches/ > > > > There is no %xgs. > > > > --- ./arch/i386/kernel/process.c~ 2007-02-24 22:56:14.000000000 +0300 > > +++ ./arch/i386/kernel/process.c 2007-02-24 22:53:19.000000000 +0300 > > @@ -426,7 +426,6 @@ > > > > regs.xds = __USER_DS; > > regs.xes = __USER_DS; > > - regs.xgs = __KERNEL_PDA; > > hm, what tree are you using as a base? The syslet patches are against > v2.6.20 at the moment. (the x86 PDA changes will probably interfere with > it on v2.6.21-rc1-ish kernels) Note that otherwise the syslet/threadlet > patches are for x86 only at the moment (as i mentioned in the > announcement), and the generic code itself contains some occasional > x86-ishms as well. (None of the concepts are x86-specific though - > multi-stack architectures should work just as well as RISC-ish CPUs.)
It is rc1 - and crashes. I test on i386 via epia (the only machine which runs x86 right now).
If there will not be any new patches, I will create 2.6.20 test tree tomorrow.
> if you create a threadlet based test-webserver, could you please do a > comparable kevents implementation as well? I.e. same HTTP parser (or > non-parser, as usually the case is with prototypes ;). Best would be > something that one could trigger between threadlet and kevent mode, > using the same binary :-)
Ok, I will create such a monster tomorrow :)
I will use the same base for threadlet as for kevent/epoll - there is no parser, just sendfile() of the static file which contains http header and actual page.
threadlet1 { accept() create threadlet2 { send data } }
Is above scheme correct for threadlet scenario?
But note, that on my athlon64 3500 test machine kevent is about 7900 requests per second compared to 4000+ epoll, so expect a challenge. lighhtpd is about the same 4000 requests per second though, since it can not be easily optimized for kevents.
> Ingo
-- Evgeniy Polyakov - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |