Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:51:24 +0300 From: "Petri Helenius" <pete@he.iki.fi> To: "Mike Makonnen" <mtm@identd.net> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LinuxThreads replacement Message-ID: <005501c348ae$f9ff8dd0$812a40c1@PETEX31> References: <001b01c3463a$0f907a00$0100a8c0@alpha> <006401c3464d$de848a00$812a40c1@PETEX31> <20030710001204.GB10504@kokeb.ambesa.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > It's not as simple as that. In practice a lot of factors about > your system and the type of work you're doing will affect the > performance. On paper, the SA/KSE method is supposed to combine > the best aspects of 1:1 (libthr) and N:1 (libc_r), and should > threoretically be "better" than either one. But, in practice, > complexity and overhead may drown out the performance gains. > Conversely, context switching overhead may not be as great a > penalty for the 1:1 model on modern cpus. > Anyone have any numbers of different architechtures for the context switch? AMD64? Itanium? i386? PPC? Sparc? How about interrupt latency? SMP coherency overhead? The basic memory bandwidth has become a marketing thing so the raw megabytes per second are readily available but in multiprocessor and multithreaded environment there is a lot more into it. Pete
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?005501c348ae$f9ff8dd0$812a40c1>