Hi, Thanks for all response, especially for Mr. Robert N M Watson I read all , and i got a lot thing from conversation about this.
It's nice community, thanks once again. Regards Binto > Roman Divacky wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 02:41:35PM -0600, Stephen Montgomery-Smith >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Robert Watson wrote: >>> >>>> ........................ >>>> In FreeBSD 8, I expect we'll see a continued focus on both locking >>>> granularity and improving opportunities for kernel parallelism by >>>> better >>>> distributing workloads over CPU pools. This is important because the >>>> number of cores/chip is continuing to increase dramatically, so MP >>>> performance is going to be important to keep working on. That said, >>>> the >>>> results to date have been extremely promising, and I anticipate that >>>> we >>>> will continue to find ways to better exploit multiprocessor hardware, >>>> especially in the network stack. >>>> >>> I just want to add my 2 cents, that my recent experience with FreeBSD >>> MP >>> has been extremely positive. I tend to use highly CPU bound MP >>> programs, >>> typically lots and lots of floating point operations. It used to be >>> that >>> Linux beat FreeBSD hands down - now FreeBSD seems to have a slight >>> edge! >>> Basically my program runs about twice as fast when I run two threads as >>> opposed to one - I cannot see doing any better than that! >> >> pure computation does not need kernel operations most of the time.. ie. >> multi-threading kernel wont help much ;) > > It has an indirect benefit by (presumably) not being in contention > with the userland process, and not needing slap Giant on the whole > system every few milliseconds. > > Doug > > -- > > This .signature sanitized for your protection > > _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
