Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2005 10:12:11 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: David Xu <davidxu@FreeBSD.org> Cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys proc.h umtx.h src/sys/kern kern_thread.c kern_umtx.c Message-ID: <20050305101211.GA59471@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200503050915.j259F30c058488@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200503050915.j259F30c058488@repoman.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 09:15:03AM +0000, David Xu wrote: > davidxu 2005-03-05 09:15:03 UTC > > FreeBSD src repository > > Modified files: > sys/sys proc.h umtx.h > sys/kern kern_thread.c kern_umtx.c > Log: > Allocate umtx_q from heap instead of stack, this avoids > page fault panic in kernel under heavy swapping. So.. Slow malloc/free path at last. As a side note, could someone (not necessarily David) comment on my impression that, for example, recently reported not-so-optimal performance of our threading model(s) is largely due to heavy use of malloc/free, as opposed to other operating systems out there? Am I right thinking that this is main bottleneck? If malloc'ing is so costly, why we're taking this path? Can kernel malloc() be optimized? Thanks. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050305101211.GA59471>