Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 02:28:32 +0400 From: Lev Serebryakov <lev@serebryakov.spb.ru> To: "Niall Douglas" <s_sourceforge@nedprod.com> Cc: threads@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support Message-ID: <549165194.20111221022832@serebryakov.spb.ru> In-Reply-To: <4EF084A8.32369.B604AD16@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> References: <Your message of "Tue, 20 Dec 2011 09:48:12 GMT." <4EF059DC.26433.B55D8036@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com>>, <3065.1324375763@critter.freebsd.dk> <4EF084A8.32369.B604AD16@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, Niall. You wrote 20 =E4=E5=EA=E0=E1=F0=FF 2011 =E3., 16:50:48: > I would assume that they were considered non portable due to vendor > objection. In particular, I remember an argument that thread=20 > stacksize settings are dangerous and must be omitted. Ouch. So, same stack sizes for programs with 10 and 10'000 threads (on one platform)?! OMG. It is completely unusable, according to my experience with massively-parallel programs (think: programs which could completely load SunFire 15K, 144-way, monster with I/O bound load without any significant lock contention!). --=20 // Black Lion AKA Lev Serebryakov <lev@serebryakov.spb.ru>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?549165194.20111221022832>