Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 18:52:10 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Sedore <cmsedore@maxwell.syr.edu> To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: RE: KSE system scope vs non system scope threads Message-ID: <20031212184457.S47162-100000@qwerty.maxwell.syr.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10312080836500.20754-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Christopher Sedore wrote: > > > > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Christopher M. Sedore wrote: > > > > > > [...] > > > > v1.18 of the thr_spinlock.c seemed to help. I'm going to try to do more > > testing this week. As I noted in my other message, 5.2Beta won't run this > > code on SMP machines (all my code is userland code, too), so it took a > > while to actually get set up to try it out. Now I need to set up kernel > > debugging to see what's going on. > > Are you using gethostby* or anything else in libc that isn't > thread-safe without using mutexes to protect them? I had a couple stray uses of strtok left over from an earlier non-threaded version--I cleaned them up, but that didn't help. Whatever it was, it was fixed in between 5.2Beta and 5.2RC1. I'm not having any performance problems with system scope threads at all, and SMP works. Overall performance is dramatically better than it had been previously. I'll try process-scope kse threads again soon. I'm just happy I don't need to move to a different platform. Now, I just have to track down why I'm getting EAGAIN from sendfile() when I'm not using non-blocking sockets... -Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031212184457.S47162-100000>