From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May 10 05:17:22 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 867F816A4EE; Tue, 10 May 2005 05:17:22 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id D749343D1F; Tue, 10 May 2005 05:17:21 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org)
Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11])
	j4A5HJgA028898;	Tue, 10 May 2005 01:17:19 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 01:17:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net
To: Jonathan Noack <noackjr@alumni.rice.edu>
In-Reply-To: <42802CB7.80301@alumni.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0505100116230.1139-100000@sea.ntplx.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net)
cc: Ewan Todd <ewan@mathcode.net>
cc: Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>
cc: Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@freebsd.org>
cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
Subject: Re: Performance issue
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org>
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code
	<freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 05:17:22 -0000

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