Call for thread testers

[David Xu]

On Thursday 28 August 2003 07:57, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> Yes, perhaps my kernel was a bit out of date.  I also had
> forgotten I had libc_r mapped to libkse with libmap.conf,
> so the libc_r tests were actually using libkse!  I re-ran
> the tests on a different box, single PIII 800MHz, 512MB RAM.
> They look better, although libthr still doesn't give consistent
> results.
>
>                        Run 1         Run 2          Run 3
>   -----------------------------------------------------------
>   libc_r       real    0m13.739s     0m13.739s      0m13.882s
>                user    0m3.330s      0m3.302s       0m3.394s
>                sys     0m9.858s      0m9.893s       0m9.820s
>   -----------------------------------------------------------
>   libkse(M:N)  real    0m11.977s     0m12.199s      0m12.097s
>                user    0m3.248s      0m3.081s       0m2.857s
>                sys     0m8.190s      0m8.517s       0m8.575s
>   -----------------------------------------------------------
>   libkse(1:1)  real    0m11.972s     0m12.044s      0m12.035s
>                user    0m3.198s      0m2.980s       0m3.183s
>                sys     0m8.244s      0m8.480s       0m8.282s
>   -----------------------------------------------------------
>   libthr       real    0m34.180s     0m16.193s      0m34.119s
>                user    0m5.075s      0m3.874s       0m5.255s
>                sys     0m28.286s     0m11.626s      0m28.038s
>   -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> libkse(1:1) and libkse(M:N) are about equal, and slightly
> better than libc_r.  I can't explain libthr results.

Use a kernel without witness compiled in, libthr should be faster
than this result.
But I always can not finish this test for libthr on my SMP machine,
in most time, it will deadlock, so I can not give you a reliable result.

David Xu