Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 02:47:44 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Tom <tom@sdf.com> Cc: Christoph Toshok <toshok@Hungry.COM>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: threads performance Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.95.980426024647.9124B-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95q.980426012031.15432B-100000@misery.sdf.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
try KTRACEing the two versions. I'll bet you'll see the difference immediatly. On Sun, 26 Apr 1998, Tom wrote: > > 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 > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.95.980426024647.9124B-100000>