| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Petri Helenius | Jan 6, 2005 7:36 am | |
| Petri Helenius | Jan 6, 2005 8:35 am | |
| David Xu | Jan 6, 2005 8:49 am | |
| Petri Helenius | Jan 6, 2005 9:15 am | |
| David Xu | Jan 6, 2005 9:22 am | |
| Niall Douglas | Jan 7, 2005 10:46 am | |
| David Xu | Jan 8, 2005 6:26 am | |
| Petri Helenius | Jan 8, 2005 10:24 am | |
| David Xu | Jan 10, 2005 4:07 pm | |
| Igor Sysoev | Jan 16, 2005 1:38 pm | |
| David Xu | Jan 18, 2005 6:12 am | |
| Julian Elischer | Jan 18, 2005 9:45 am | |
| David Xu | Jan 18, 2005 3:41 pm | |
| Ivan Voras | Jan 18, 2005 3:46 pm | |
| Julian Elischer | Jan 18, 2005 4:18 pm | |
| David Xu | Jan 19, 2005 3:20 am |
| Subject: | higher speed mutexes | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | David Xu (davi...@freebsd.org) | |
| Date: | Jan 6, 2005 8:49:10 am | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-threads | |
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
_______________________________________________ free...@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads To unsubscribe, send any mail to "free...@freebsd.org"





