Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 17:06:31 +0200 From: Maxim Sobolev <sobomax@portaone.com> To: "developers@freebsd.org" <current@freebsd.org> Subject: Pthreads performance Message-ID: <420CC9F7.40802@portaone.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Note: I am purposely posting this to developers to avoid banging into "FreeBSD 5/6 is slow" drum. My pthreads knowellege is pretty basic, so that it's possible that this all is false alarm. I've found a post on some of Russian technical forums in which author tries to compare performance of basic synchronisation primitives in various threading packages available on FreeBSD. The interesting part is that the linuxthreads clearly wins by a high margin - difference between it and the next follower (kse) is almost 3x. I had tried to find some error in the program logic, but failed. Another interesting thing is that libthr, which is conceptually very close to linuxthreads, provides worst result, being 8x slower than LT and almost 3x slower than kse/c_r. For those who can read Russian the original post can be found here: http://www.opennet.ru/base/sec/test_freebsd_threads.txt.html Following is result of the run on my 5.3-STABLE/UP. -bash-2.05b$ time ./aqueue_c_r -n 10000000 pusher started poper started real 0m17.826s user 0m17.766s sys 0m0.048s -bash-2.05b$ time ./aqueue_thr -n 10000000 pusher started poper started real 0m46.227s user 0m18.706s sys 0m27.423s -bash-2.05b$ time ./aqueue_kse -n 10000000 pusher started poper started real 0m15.477s user 0m15.432s sys 0m0.009s -bash-2.05b$ time ./aqueue_linuxthreads -n 10000000 pusher started poper started real 0m6.118s user 0m2.217s sys 0m0.932s -bash-2.05b$ Test case and script that compiles it can be found there: http://www.portaone.com/~sobomax/aqueue.c http://www.portaone.com/~sobomax/build.sh -Maxim
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?420CC9F7.40802>