Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 16:15:50 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: Andriy Tkachuk <andrit@ukr.net> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: patch for threads/76690 - critical - fork hang in child for-lc_r Message-ID: <4226C7B6.4060901@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <005201c51fc2$d8676b60$090210ac@BORJA> References: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0503021042310.26125-100000@sea.ntplx.net> <000b01c51fbb$4189ea30$090210ac@BORJA> <005201c51fc2$d8676b60$090210ac@BORJA>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hmm, libc_r and libpthread handle spinlock differently which malloc uses to protect itself, some real world benchmarks are better than this. David Xu Andriy Tkachuk wrote: >But if one wants to use pure user threads >on his UP system, what he will chose if not libc_r ? > >And i have some test program with shows >the better results for libc_r than for libpthreads. >Take a look. > >The program is the 500 threads, each of them allocate >memory in loop and then free it in another loop. >Program outputs the time consumed for this two loops. > >See the results. > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4226C7B6.4060901>