From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Mar  3 08:16:10 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0340716A4CF
	for <threads@freebsd.org>; Thu,  3 Mar 2005 08:16:10 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E147843D1D; Thu,  3 Mar 2005 08:16:09 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (davidxu@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j238G7Bb039509;
	Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:16:08 GMT
	(envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
Message-ID: <4226C7B6.4060901@freebsd.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:15:50 +0800
From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
	rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andriy Tkachuk <andrit@ukr.net>
References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0503021042310.26125-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
	<000b01c51fbb$4189ea30$090210ac@BORJA> <005201c51fc2$d8676b60$090210ac@BORJA>
In-Reply-To: <005201c51fc2$d8676b60$090210ac@BORJA>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: threads@freebsd.org
Subject: 
	Re: patch for threads/76690 - critical - fork hang in child for-lc_r
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 08:16:10 -0000

Hmm,  libc_r and libpthread handle spinlock differently which malloc
uses  to protect itself, some real world benchmarks are better than this.

David Xu

Andriy Tkachuk wrote:

>But if one wants to use pure user threads
>on his UP system, what he will chose if not libc_r ?
>
>And i have some test program with shows
>the better results for libc_r than for libpthreads.
>Take a look.
>
>The program is the 500 threads, each of them allocate
>memory in loop and then free it in another loop.
>Program outputs the time consumed for this two loops.
>
>See the results.
>  
>