From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed May 11 14:55:54 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C384C16A4CE; Wed, 11 May 2005 14:55:54 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.ntplx.net (mail.ntplx.net [204.213.176.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D2A243D7D; Wed, 11 May 2005 14:55:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from deischen@freebsd.org) Received: from sea.ntplx.net (sea.ntplx.net [204.213.176.11]) j4BEtkTc014890; Wed, 11 May 2005 10:55:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:55:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Daniel Eischen X-X-Sender: eischen@sea.ntplx.net To: Mikhail Teterin In-Reply-To: <200505102343.42387@Misha> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS and Clam AntiVirus (mail.ntplx.net) cc: stable@freebsd.org cc: re@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PTHREAD_INVARIANTS in 5.x X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Daniel Eischen List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 14:55:54 -0000 On Tue, 10 May 2005, Mikhail Teterin wrote: > = > As we were counting down to 5.3-RELEASE, I noticed, that all > = > threading libraries still compile with PTHREAD_INVARIANTS. My > = > suggestion to have this = > fixed was shutdown as not enough time > = > was left for testing the 5.3. > > = > Can we have these things turned off NOW, so that, at least, 5.5 > = > stands a chance? Thanks! > = > = What makes you think there is a measurable performance impact with > = them on? > > Interesting... Are you implying, the debugging code makes no difference, > or are genuinly asking? Both. > There are additional steps in the code, that are only done when > the define is on. Does not look like much in libthr, but c_r's > uthread/uthread_mutex.c seems quite affected, for example. And you know > it, of course... c_r is deprecated, so I've no interest in that. My only concern is with libthr and libpthread. > = Regardless, it would first need to be in -current, not -stable. > > I thought, the debugging features (WITNESS INVARIANTS) are always on in > -current, but are turned off in -stable for maximum performance. Is that > no longer true? They've never been off in -current. You'd have to show turning them off causes no harm. -- DE