higher speed mutexes

[Petri Helenius]

David Xu wrote:

> 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.
>
Sounds great. Will this change the performance of rwlocks or is simple 
mutex preferred for performance sensitive applications?
Is this something that I could drop on top of RELENG_5 or RELENG_5_3 or 
is CURRENT required?
Do you have this in some public depository already?

Pete

> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> freebsd-threads at freebsd.org mailing list
>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads
>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
>> "freebsd-threads-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>
>>
>