Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 10:36:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com> To: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: libkse "wieght" Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10307261025370.1253-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <200307262145.02854.davidxu@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, David Xu wrote: > On Saturday 26 July 2003 21:00, Petri Helenius wrote: > > First of all, I=B4m very happy with the libkse since a few weeks ago, > > scheduling and signals seem to work for me and the application runs > > smoother than ever, although with only a handful of threads. > > > > I was wondering how "expensive" thread creation and termination designe= d to > > be with libkse, say should I just create and throw away tens or hundred= s of > > threads in a small time or try to "recycle" the worker threads I alread= y > > created?=20 >=20 > With newest libkse source code, I can create 5000 threads and then > pthread_join them in 0.6 seconds on my PIII 1Ghz machine. Although it is > cheap enough to create thread and throw it away, but caching some threads= is=20 > still a good idea. Libkse caches up to 100 threads for you, and throws away any more than that to free(). There is still a bit of set up to do with a libkse cached thread (makecontext(), add the thread to the run queue, etc), but it should be faster than creating a thread from scratch. I think you would have to modify the library to not cache threads (set MAX_CACHED_THREADS to 0 in lipthread/thread/thr_kern.c) in order to really benchmark the difference between the library caching threads and not caching threads. --=20 Dan Eischen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.10.10307261025370.1253-100000>