[lkml]   [1997]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    Subjectsomething to experiment with: LIFO and accept()
    It's my suspicion that if accept() woke up the last process to block on
    it then there'd be a performance improvement for servers like Apache.
    Essentially, the last process into accept() is the most recent in the
    CPU's caches, and so waking it first should result, on average, in fewer
    cache misses.

    I suspect this because of a behaviour that requires tuning in Apache --
    the MaxSpareServers parameter. When MaxSpareServers is too high the httpd
    consumes a large amount of CPU doing essentially nothing. Halving your
    MaxSpareServers frequently results in the same or better performance
    but far less CPU usage (it'll depend on your bottlenecks of course).
    And this is in cases where all the spare children are still in RAM, and
    not swapped and so on. The only explanation (other than the admittedly
    poor child mgmt code in apache) I've come up with so far is that there's
    a boundary beyond which the L2 cache is overrun.

    So, if anyone has the time/inclination here's an experiment. Get a
    recent apache. Learn why src/conf.h defines USE_FCNTL_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT
    for LINUX and figure out if you can remove that define (you may need
    to fix a kernel problem, I'm not sure...). Once that's done and it's
    running stable then benchmark it. Now hack your linux kernel to wake
    tasks in LIFO order out of accept() and benchmark again.

    Report results to me please, esp. if you find out that modern linux
    kernels don't need USE_FCNTL_SERIALIZED_ACCEPT since that would speed
    up apache a smidgen anyhow.


     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:39    [W:0.016 / U:14.412 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site