Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:57:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:56:29 -0400 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:21457 "HELO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:55:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 17:57:33 +0200 (CEST) From: Ingo Molnar Reply-To: Ingo Molnar To: Luca Barbieri Cc: Linus Torvalds , Linux-Kernel ML , Alexandre Julliard Subject: Re: [patch] tls-2.5.31-C3 In-Reply-To: <1029159781.4713.52.camel@ldb> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1263 Lines: 38 On 12 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote: > > > Numbers: > > > unconditional copy of 2 tls descs: 5 cycles > > > this patch with 1 tls desc: 26 cycles > > > this patch with 8 tls descs: 52 cycles > > > > [ 0 tls descs: 2 cycles. ] > Yes but common multithreaded applications will have at least 1 for > pthreads. i would not say 'common' and 'multithreaded' in the same sentence. It might be so in the future, but it isnt today. > > how did you calculate this? > ((26 - 5) / 2000) * 100 ~= 1 > Benchmarks done in kernel mode (2.4.18) with interrupts disabled on a > Pentium3 running the rdtsc timed benchmark in a loop 1 million times > with 8 unbenchmarked iterations to warm up caches and with the time to > execute an empty benchmark subtracted. old libpthreads or new one? > > glibc multithreaded applications can avoid the > > lldt via using the TLS, and thus it's a net win. > Surely, this patch is better than the old LDT method but much worse than > the 2-TLS one. people asked for a 3rd TLS already. Ingo - 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/