Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 01:53:28 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: David Xu <davidxu@viatech.com.cn> Cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Subject: Re: Nvidia, TLS and __thread keyword -- an observation Message-ID: <3EF02888.4E72CE7F@mindspring.com> References: <20030617071810.GA2451@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net><Pine.BSF.4.21.0306171433060.31025-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <002101c3352a$e931a7f0$0701a8c0@tiger>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Xu wrote: [ ... implicit TLS initialization and destruction ... ] > I believe this will add overhead to thread creating and destroying, Yes. It will. See my other posting for the tradeoffs. The complexity is not as bad as Marcel makes out, but it's still a bad tradeoff for most existing threaded applications and libraries, even if we thing more people will use implict TLS as time goes on. I think it's the wrong tradeoff, too. I would make them burn a general purpose register -- one that they are allowed to burn, as an application -- on FreeBSD. I have a hard time believing that any of their functions use up all the registers, even on a register-poor CISC architecture like x86; if they are that complex, then they are doing so much stuff that explicit TLS access overhead would be lost in the noise. -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EF02888.4E72CE7F>