From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun 11 08:27:16 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 3921116A4CE; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:27:16 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EFBFE43D45; Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:27:15 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from eischen@vigrid.com)
Received: from mail.pcnet.com (mail.pcnet.com [204.213.232.4])
	by mail.pcnet.com (8.12.10/8.12.1) with ESMTP id i5B8R16x021762;
	Fri, 11 Jun 2004 04:27:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 04:27:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
X-Sender: eischen@pcnet5.pcnet.com
To: Sean McNeil <sean@mcneil.com>
In-Reply-To: <1086941779.10026.38.camel@server.mcneil.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10406110418180.12394-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: signal handler priority issue
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 08:27:16 -0000

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Sean McNeil wrote:

> Now here is something odd....
> 
> If I change the program a little, it acts completely different.  It
> actually works faster and looks correct.  I don't get it.  This is
> pretty much exactly what boehm-gc is doing.
> 
> static void
> pause_threads(void)
> {
>         int i;
> 
>         printf("Master: pausing all threads.\n");
>         for (i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++) {
>                 pthread_kill(tids[i], SIGUSR1);
>         }
>         for (i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++) {
>                 if (sem_wait(&semaphore) == -1)
>                         errno_abort("Wait on semaphore");
>         }
> }

Yeah, I almost coded it this way.  It seems to work faster because
the threads are true workers.  They're spinning wasting the CPU.
The timeslice is 10 or 20 msec, so you have to wait for each thread
to get timesliced out in order for it to have the signal delivered.
Instead of:

  thread 1 spin for 10msec
  master kill thread 1
  master wait thread for thread 1
  thread 2 spin for 10msec
  thread 3 spin for 10msec
  thread 4 spin for 10msec
  thread 5 spin for 10msec
  master wakeup from thread 1
  master kill thread 2
  thread 3 spin for 10msec
  thread 4 spin for 10msec
  thread 5 spin for 10msec
  master wakeup from thread 2
  master kill thread 3
  ...

you have

  threads running
  master thread gets his chance
  master kill thread 1
  master kill thread 2
  master kill thread 3
  master kill thread 4
  master kill thread 5
  thread 1 swapped back in, gets signal, pauses
  thread 2 swapped back in, gets signal, pauses
  thread 3 swapped back in, gets signal, pauses
  thread 4 swapped back in, gets signal, pauses
  thread 5 swapped back in, gets signal, pauses

-- 
Dan Eischen