Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:03:50 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threading code review please. Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030327100013.37107G-100000@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <3E82F7EE.6080802@tcoip.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > Jeff Roberson wrote: > > I'm going to reply to the threads on 1:1 vs M:N tomorrow. I'd like to > > request that people actually read the patch and give me feedback on the > > code and not the approach. > > > > I have no outstanding behavior problems with mozilla. It actually runs > > much faster now with libthr in place of libc_r. On pages with LOTS of > > images it scrolls much smoother. I suspect its the amount of io waits. > > This is an SMP system you are talking about? Both 1:1 and M:N threading will improve performance of interactive applications if they spend any moderate amount of time I/O bound. I've noticed substantial performance differences between instances of openoffice linked for libc_r and openoffice linked for linuxthreads -- serializing I/O operations substantially impacts throughput and interactivty due to latency. Try running the Linux-linked mozilla, the FreeBSD libc_r mozilla, and the FreeBSD linuxthreads mozilla and see how they compare. Robert N M Watson FreeBSD Core Team, TrustedBSD Projects robert@fledge.watson.org Network Associates Laboratories
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.NEB.3.96L.1030327100013.37107G-100000>