Nice, thanks for testing. It's good to know it's reliable. Were you
watching pool stats while running the tests?
Either way, I'm going to commit this so it will get broader testing.
Cheers,
dlg
On 1 Nov 2016 4:14 a.m., "Simon Mages" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> today i did some performance messurements on
Hi,
today i did some performance messurements on OpenBSD-current, with and
without your diff.
I use a custom HTTP proxy. Performance in this case is requests/s and bandwidth.
To messure requests/s i use requests with a very small response. To
messure bandwidth
i use big responses. This custom pro
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:35:45AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:24:13PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> > ive posted this before as part of a much bigger diff, but smaller
> > is better.
> >
> > it basically lets things ask for per-cpu item caches to be enabled
> > on pools
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 04:24:13PM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
> ive posted this before as part of a much bigger diff, but smaller
> is better.
>
> it basically lets things ask for per-cpu item caches to be enabled
> on pools. the most obvious use case for this is the mbuf pools.
>
> the caches ar
ive posted this before as part of a much bigger diff, but smaller
is better.
it basically lets things ask for per-cpu item caches to be enabled
on pools. the most obvious use case for this is the mbuf pools.
the caches are modelled on whats described in the "Magazines and
Vmem: Extending the Slab
