Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 01:17:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Jonathan Noack <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu> Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Performance issue Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0505100116230.1139-100000@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <42802CB7.80301@alumni.rice.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 9 May 2005, Jonathan Noack wrote: > On 05/09/05 18:47, Daniel Eischen wrote: > >>If the process wasn't linked to libpthread, then the longjmp() > >>and setjmp() would still be calling the syscall, so it isn't > >>the syscall itself that is making things slower. You'll notice > >>that there are two calls to __sys_sigprocmask() in the section > >>of code you have patched. You could eliminate the second call > >>if you do some of what the remainder of the function does instead > >>of returning early (the locks aren't needed and pending signals > >>don't need to be run down). > > > > As in something like this: > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~deischen/kse/thr_sigmask.c.diffs > > > > It has not been tested. > > When I tried to test this every threaded program died with sig 11. Does > this require me to recompile the program before it will work? No, the patch just must have a bug in it. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.43.0505100116230.1139-100000>