Re: KSE, libpthread & libthr: almost newbie question

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