Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 23:28:01 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: csujun@21cn.com Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: libthr and 1:1 threading. Message-ID: <3E8A9101.66FE4135@mindspring.com> References: <20030402070515.40396.qmail@web41803.mail.yahoo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jun Su wrote: > [ ... 1:1 kernel threads implementation ... ] > > A benchmark would be interested. This request doesn't make sense. The primary performance reasoning behind a 1:1 kernel threading implementation, relative to the user space single kernel entry scheduler in the libc_r implementation is SMP scalability for threaded applications. Basically, the only reasonable benchmark, given this, for a comparison of the two would be a threaded CPU-bound program on a *non-SMP* system. That really makes no sense, because that wasn't the use case for the design goal of SMP scalability; it doesn't really matter *what* the relative performance is on UP systems, relative to the libc_r library, so long as it adds SMP scalability. Which it does. It's apples and oranges; there's really no reasonable way to compare the two implementations, since they solve different problem sets. Could you maybe ask a different question? -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3E8A9101.66FE4135>