Re: libthr and 1:1 threading.

Sheldon Hearn wrote:
> On (2003/04/02 06:05), Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > Do I misremember this? If not, does it not apply to UP systems as well?
> >
> > FWIW: the libc_r reentrancy isn't fixed by a 1:1 model for
> > anything but calls for which there are no non-blocking
> > alternative kernel APIs.  [...long ramble...]

When someone asks you a question and you answer it, it's not
a "ramble", it's an "answer".  8-).


> For all the rambling, I'm happy to report that my SCHED_ULE + libthr
> UP workstation feels noticibly more responsive when I have several
> Mozilla tabs all loading pages simultaneously while I'm trying to make a
> threaded Java IDE do something sensible.

You need to read things.  I already explained that you were
competing unfairly for quantum with other processes, in violation
of POSIX.1, by virtue of defaulting to PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM.  If
you want to use PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM, you are supposed to have
priviledges.

Also, as I suggested, try nice'ing up your old version of
Mozilla, and see if that gets you the same priority boost.  8-).


> It's possible that I'm actually seeing the impact of other changes that
> have been committed in the last week, I suppose.

Jeff's recent sceduler changes have improved performance, in general,
for most people who have tried them.

It's naieve to change 8 or 9 things, and then attribute something
as subjective perceived performance to one of them in particular.

8-) 8-).

-- Terry