Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 06:15:28 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 06:15:28 -0400 Received: from wsip68-15-8-100.sd.sd.cox.net ([68.15.8.100]:58756 "EHLO gnuppy.monkey.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 06:15:28 -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 03:20:31 -0700 To: Ulrich Drepper Cc: linux-kernel , "Bill Huey (Hui)" Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] Native POSIX Thread Library 0.1 Message-ID: <20020920102031.GA4744@gnuppy.monkey.org> References: <3D8A6EC1.1010809@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D8A6EC1.1010809@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i From: Bill Huey (Hui) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 958 Lines: 24 On Thu, Sep 19, 2002 at 05:41:37PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote: > It is not generally accepted that a 1-on-1 model is superior but our > tests showed the viability of this approach and by comparing it with > the overhead added by existing M-on-N implementations we became > convinced that 1-on-1 is the right approach. Maybe not but... You might like to try a context switching/thread wakeup performance measurement against FreeBSD's libc_r. I'd imagine that it's difficult to beat a system like that since they keep all of that stuff in userspace since it's just 2 context switches and a call to their thread-kernel. I'm curious as to the rough numbers you got doing the 1:1 and M:N comparison. bill - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/