reading this message in the archives: this
draft will disappear a few days after this message is posted. The final
copy of the paper will be available around April 16 2002 and will be
linked to the same site where the Hourglass software is located:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/hourglass
Thank
> > > Have you tried benchmarking process to process context switch times to see
> > > if the results are similar?
I put a quartet of histograms here:
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/freebsd_ctx_quantum.eps
http://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/freebsd_ctx_yield.eps
that demonstrate, basically, wha
> The problem is that it's not clear what the graphs you posted
> are comparing. In the context of the paper, this will probably
> be mitigated somewhat. However, there are a lot of people who
> will turn directly to the graphs in any paper, and yell about
> them, so I doubt you are safe, not ma
wo Linuxthreads, when the system load consists of 10
CPU-bound threads and very little other activity
oranges == expected time to execute the FreeBSD context switch code when
switching between two Linuxthreads, when the system load consists of 10
CPU-bound threads and very little other activity
Than
threads binaries compile on linux (using
> emulation) and compiled on FreeBSD. it would be interesting to see
> if there is a difference..
There does not appear to be a statistically significant difference
between a native binary and an emulated Linux binary.
Thanks,
John Regehr
To Uns
2) some other kind of
semantic mismatch between Linuxthreads and rfork. Is one of these
guesses right?
Any help appreciated. Thanks,
John Regehr
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
6 matches
Mail list logo
