panic in recent RELENG_5 tcp code path
kris at obsecurity.org
Fri May 20 11:57:04 PDT 2005
On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 01:55:56PM -0500, Dan Nelson wrote:
> In the last episode (May 20), Kris Kennaway said:
> > On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 05:15:36PM +0400, Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 20, 2005 at 03:10:32PM +0200, Jeremie Le Hen wrote:
> > > J> I'm going to recompile my kernel with INVARIANTS but I wonder in
> > > J> which order of magniture it will slow my kernel down. In other
> > > J> words, what does INVARIANTS do concretely, shall I expect a
> > > J> performance drop like WITNESS does ?
> > >
> > > No. The performance loss is _much_ less significant than in WITNESS
> > > case. You probably will not notice it.
> > Actually, INVARIANTS causes about a 10% penalty on wall clock time on
> > 5.x and above.
> Which is a lot less of a hit than WITNESS is, to be sure. WITNESS is
> like walking in mud :) Do you know if INVARIANT_SUPPORT by itself is
> enough to cause the 10% slowdown? That turns on LOCK_DEBUG, which in
> turn disables inlining of mutex macros.
I haven't benchmarked that, but it would be interesting to know.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/attachments/20050520/4e34da3f/attachment.bin
More information about the freebsd-stable