On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 05:09:08PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 09:06:45AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote: >>On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:52:47PM +0000, Heiko Elger wrote: >>>Hello, >>> >>>Corinna Vinschen writes: >>>> >>>> The slowdown of the code was the result of a patch which was supposed >>>> to fix a potential race condition. Jojelino's patch looks nice, but >>>> it might reintroduce a new race. Handle with care. >>>Oops - what king of race condition do you mean. >>> >>>OK - that's a new information for me. >>>So the current slow implementation is a workaround for another race >>>condition. >> >>The signal startup has been very carefully crafted. Starting wait_sig >>asynchronously could create inability to send signals. >> >>I can't check this right now. I should be back near my Windows system on the >>weekend. > >I've checked in a change which uses QueueUserAPC to create threads like >the signal thread. As everyone has noted this seems to have a salutory >effect on the OP's test case. > >I don't entirely understand why the code which already existed in Cygwin >to deal with the "slow performance on win7/64" didn't fix the problem but >using QueueUserAPC seems to solve the problem so I guess won't lose too >much sleep over this. > >Thanks jojelino for the idea. Much appreciated.
Oops. Forgot to mention that these changes are available in the most recent snapshot at: http://cygwin.com/snapshots/ . cgf -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
