Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2005 16:56:15 +0800 From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org> To: Petri Helenius <pete@he.iki.fi> Cc: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: higher speed mutexes Message-ID: <41DCFD2F.2040207@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <41DCEA91.6040402@he.iki.fi> References: <41DCEA91.6040402@he.iki.fi>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I will have low overhead pthread library available soon, for simple mutex, it is only an atomic_cmpset_long() plus a function call (pthread_mutex_lock) overhead. David Xu Petri Helenius wrote: > > Hi, > > I have some low-contention mutexes which I'm trying to make perform > better and I'm wondering if the current threading library does have some > primitives I could use or if I'm better off using atomic_cmpset_* and > pthread_yield() if the thread hit's contention (which should be about > 1:10000 of the lock/unlock operation). > > Any scheduling caveats from above, except obviously it would spin while > waiting for the lock. Most systems I plan on running this on have > dual-hypethreading CPU's. > > I remember there were some discussion about dropping i386 compatible > support for mutexes and using atomic operations instead. Is there > code/compile time options for this on a branch I could check out and > give it a spin? > > Pete > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-threads@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?41DCFD2F.2040207>