Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>