KSE, libpthread & libthr: almost newbie question
Simon L. Nielsen
simon at FreeBSD.org
Fri Oct 27 21:04:59 UTC 2006
On 2006.10.27 17:55:20 +0200, gnn at freebsd.org wrote:
> At Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:02:59 +0100 (BST),
> rwatson wrote:
> > (3). One of the current theories bouncing around the kernel
> > developer community is that the complexity and overhead of (2)
> > outweighs many of the benefits of KSE, and that by making it an
> > option, we can better evaluate the impact. Notice that this isn't
> > just about code complexity, but also about scheduler overhead.
> > David Xu has reported a non-trivial performance change from the
> > reduced overhead of the scheduler paths. So now we're at a point
> > where we can more fully evaluate the impact of KSE (since we can
> > actually compile it out of the scheduler). Before anything further
> > can be done, we now need to do that evaluation.
> >
>
> And speaking of evaluation if people can follow the advice here:
>
> http://wikitest.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice
>
> It would be greatly appreciated.
Note that the text copy/pasted here is actually already in our
developmers handbook (and has been since shortly after phk's mail):
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook/testing.html
--
Simon L. Nielsen
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list