From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 26 01:48:29 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA18926 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 01:48:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from misery.sdf.com (misery.sdf.com [204.244.213.32]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with SMTP id BAA18918 for ; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 01:48:24 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tom@sdf.com) Received: from tom by misery.sdf.com with smtp (Exim 1.82 #3) id 0yTMhb-0004XE-00; Sun, 26 Apr 1998 01:22:23 -0700 Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 01:22:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom To: Christoph Toshok cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: threads performance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 25 Apr 1998, Christoph Toshok wrote: > Are there any plans to address the performance of threads in the > coming weeks/months? The fact that NSPR can drop 21 seconds off the > runtime (in this very contrived example) makes me think that there is > a lot going on in libc_r that is suboptimal, but perhaps there is just > no other way to implement things so they conform to the posix spec. Even mit-pthreads on a 2.2.6 system is faster than libc_r (using the tests in mysql as a comparison). The weird part is that the amount of CPU time accumulated is very similar, libc_r just takes more real time. Makes me think that something in libc_r just sleeps once and while... Tom To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message