On 12/02/15 23:27, Rich Felker wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 06:23:12PM +0000, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 02/12/2015 04:16 PM, Rich Felker wrote: >>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 05:11:45PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:09:59AM -0500, Rich Felker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> This usage is supposed to be deprecated. Why isn't libgomp using >>>>> TLSDESC/gnu2 model? >>>> >>>> Because it is significantly slower. >>> >>> Seems very unlikely. If storage is allocated in static TLS, TLSDESC is >>> almost indistinguishable from IE in performance, even when you run >>> artificial benchmarks that do nothing but hammer TLS access. When it >>> gets allocated in dynamic TLS, it's somewhat slower, but still >>> unlikely to matter for most usage IMO. >> >> The problem I'm seeing is that dynamic TLS is always used even when not >> necessary, and that hurts Java (which accesses TLS 128k times in the first >> 500ms or so of execution). According to lxo his patch fixes that. > > Given those numbers, each access would need to be taking 38ns to > consume even 1% of the cpu time being spent. I would guess accesses > are closer to 5ns for TLSDESC in static area and 10-15ns for dynamic. > So I don't think this is a botteneck.
I'm totally unconvinced by this style of argument. An efficient system is composed of many small optimizations, each apparently insignificant in itself. Your figures indicate that this slowdown may be about 0.5%. 0.5% is not small. I put in a lot of work to gain 0.5%. Andrew.
