From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 27 15:56:05 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB79F16A403; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:56:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Received: from mrout1.yahoo.com (mrout1.yahoo.com [216.145.54.171]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B277843D49; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:56:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnn@neville-neil.com) Received: from minion.local.neville-neil.com (proxy7.corp.yahoo.com [216.145.48.98]) by mrout1.yahoo.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/y.out) with ESMTP id k9RFtOdV095831; Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:55:24 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 17:55:20 +0200 Message-ID: From: gnn@freebsd.org To: Robert Watson In-Reply-To: <20061027103924.F79313@fledge.watson.org> References: <917908193.20061027102647@serebryakov.spb.ru> <20061027103924.F79313@fledge.watson.org> User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.8 (=?ISO-8859-4?Q?Shij=F2?=) APEL/10.6 Emacs/22.0.50 (i386-apple-darwin8.7.1) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Lev Serebryakov , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: KSE, libpthread & libthr: almost newbie question X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:56:06 -0000 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