Re: performance issues during build.sh -j 40 kernel

[Maxime Villard <max%m00nbsd.net@localhost>]

Le 10/09/2017 à 19:50, Joerg Sonnenberger a écrit :
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2017 at 07:17:51PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> > That's true, but changing this also has quite a significant downside on
> > some workloads for second order effects. I don't think it is a good idea
> > to change this right now, as it doesn't even fix the real problem.
>
> Just to quantify this part, for a current release build on tmpfs, I see:
>
> After:
> 4267
> 4280
> 4261
> 4247
> 4300
>
> Before:
> 3915
> 3951
> 3991
> 3961
> 3968

That's the cacheline alignment on the uvm locks, right? In that case, what do
you think are the "second order effects"?

Maxime