Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 10:27:23 +0100 From: gregoryd.freebsd@free.fr To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Before & After Under The Giant Lock Message-ID: <1196069243.474a917b04d95@imp.free.fr> In-Reply-To: <20071125203321.G65286@fledge.watson.org> References: <474830F9.90305@zirakzigil.org> <6eb82e0711240638g2cc1e54o1fb1321cafe8ff9f@mail.gmail.com> <1188.202.127.99.4.1195957922.squirrel@webmail.triplegate.net.id> <20071125110116.U63238@fledge.watson.org> <7bc80d500711251205w1a74b649mc3bd374545c1012c@mail.gmail.com> <7bc80d500711251209p3bd78bc0leb37d4cb85f677f3@mail.gmail.com> <20071125203321.G65286@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, Quoting Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>: > No problem -- just to be clear: in 7, users can still choose between > libpthread (m:n) and libthr (1:1), but the default is now libthr rather than > libpthread, as libthr seemed to perform better in most if not all workloads > of > interest. I thought 1:1 would perform better with I/O bound processes running several threads. But wouldn't a process rely on a few I/O threads for several other CPU bound threads ? (unless specific activities such as a web server, or a database, which would explain MySQL performing better with 1:1) Or, to make my point (somewhat) clearer: how did you actually compare advantages of 1:1 versus M:N when the change from the latter to the former was decided ? And second question: would it be possible to dynamically choose one way over the other: meaning if you know you're mostly I/O bound, then request for the 1:1 type of threads, and vice versa ? thanks, gregory
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1196069243.474a917b04d95>