Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:55:20 +0200 From: gnn@freebsd.org To: Robert Watson <rwatson@freebsd.org> Cc: Lev Serebryakov <lev@freebsd.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KSE, libpthread & libthr: almost newbie question Message-ID: <m2r6wtsqhj.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> In-Reply-To: <20061027103924.F79313@fledge.watson.org> References: <917908193.20061027102647@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20061027103924.F79313@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:02:59 +0100 (BST), rwatson wrote: > (3). One of the current theories bouncing around the kernel > developer community is that the complexity and overhead of (2) > outweighs many of the benefits of KSE, and that by making it an > option, we can better evaluate the impact. Notice that this isn't > just about code complexity, but also about scheduler overhead. > David Xu has reported a non-trivial performance change from the > reduced overhead of the scheduler paths. So now we're at a point > where we can more fully evaluate the impact of KSE (since we can > actually compile it out of the scheduler). Before anything further > can be done, we now need to do that evaluation. > And speaking of evaluation if people can follow the advice here: http://wikitest.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice It would be greatly appreciated. Best, George
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m2r6wtsqhj.wl%gnn>