Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 15:19:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: threads@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Nvidia, TLS and __thread keyword -- an observation Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0306181518520.39446-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> In-Reply-To: <20030618182638.GA63660@ns1.xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Marcel, are you (or do you kno of anyone else) doing anything on TLS? On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 02:05:04AM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 07:48:09AM +0800, David Xu wrote: > > > > I believe this will add overhead to thread creating and destroying, > > > > How fast an RTLD can be in this case ? > > > > > > In the dynamic TLS model you would like to delay the creation of > > > the TLS space. Normally __tls_get_addr() gets used for this. In > > > the static TLS model you allocate the TLS when you llocate the > > > thread control structure. > > > > Lazy binding in this context doesn't make a lot of sense. > > It does. In a process with 1000 threads where 1 thread does > a dlopen(), you don't want to create 999 TLS spaces if they're > not going to be used. Besides time, this also is a space > issue. > > Note also that I don't advocate what I think we should do, but > what the specification is designed for. People have put some > thought in it... > > -- > Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0306181518520.39446-100000>