Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:07:21 +0200 From: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi> To: Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge@nedprod.com> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: mutex performance Message-ID: <419DA9B9.50105@he.iki.fi> In-Reply-To: <419DA7EC.20473.1CFB6AE9@localhost> References: <419DA7EC.20473.1CFB6AE9@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Niall Douglas wrote: >In my library TnFOX (http://www.nedprod.com/TnFOX/) where I've >completely rewritten mutexs for speed: > > FXAtomicInt FXMutex > SMP Build, 1 thread : 51203277 18389113 > SMP Build, 2 threads: 4793978 5337603 >Non-SMP Build, 1 thread : 103305785 27352297 >Non-SMP Build, 2 threads: 54929964 10978153 > >This is on a dual Athon 1700 (1.43Ghz), so that's 77.76 cycles per >lock/unlock with SMP build and 52.28 cycles on non-SMP build. The >difference between SMP and non-SMP is that the former uses the lock >prefix on the x86 instructions. > >So yes, I think there is some scope for improvement. > > Are these mutexes spinlocks or "real" locks which make the thread actually yield if they have to wait longer? Or should I RTFS? :-) Pete
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?419DA9B9.50105>