From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Aug 27 17:26:35 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 00FC416A4C1; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:26:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C8FCA43FB1; Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:26:33 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from davidxu@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from localhost (davidxu@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by freefall.freebsd.org (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h7S0QVUp039470;
	Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:26:32 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from davidxu@FreeBSD.org)
From: David Xu <davidxu@FreeBSD.org>
To: Daniel Eischen <eischen@vigrid.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 08:29:32 +0800
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.2
References: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10308271953550.9892-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10308271953550.9892-100000@pcnet5.pcnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200308280829.32757.davidxu@FreeBSD.org>
cc: threads@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Call for thread testers
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: davidxu@FreeBSD.org
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 00:26:35 -0000

On Thursday 28 August 2003 07:57, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> Yes, perhaps my kernel was a bit out of date.  I also had
> forgotten I had libc_r mapped to libkse with libmap.conf,
> so the libc_r tests were actually using libkse!  I re-ran
> the tests on a different box, single PIII 800MHz, 512MB RAM.
> They look better, although libthr still doesn't give consistent
> results.
>
>                        Run 1         Run 2          Run 3
>   -----------------------------------------------------------
>   libc_r       real    0m13.739s     0m13.739s      0m13.882s
>                user    0m3.330s      0m3.302s       0m3.394s
>                sys     0m9.858s      0m9.893s       0m9.820s
>   -----------------------------------------------------------
>   libkse(M:N)  real    0m11.977s     0m12.199s      0m12.097s
>                user    0m3.248s      0m3.081s       0m2.857s
>                sys     0m8.190s      0m8.517s       0m8.575s
>   -----------------------------------------------------------
>   libkse(1:1)  real    0m11.972s     0m12.044s      0m12.035s
>                user    0m3.198s      0m2.980s       0m3.183s
>                sys     0m8.244s      0m8.480s       0m8.282s
>   -----------------------------------------------------------
>   libthr       real    0m34.180s     0m16.193s      0m34.119s
>                user    0m5.075s      0m3.874s       0m5.255s
>                sys     0m28.286s     0m11.626s      0m28.038s
>   -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> libkse(1:1) and libkse(M:N) are about equal, and slightly
> better than libc_r.  I can't explain libthr results.

Use a kernel without witness compiled in, libthr should be faster
than this result.
But I always can not finish this test for libthr on my SMP machine,
in most time, it will deadlock, so I can not give you a reliable result.

David Xu