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:
>>>
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
Quoting Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
No problem -- just to be clear: in 7, users can still choose between
libpthread (m:n) and libthr (1:1), but the default is now libthr rather than
libpthread, as libthr seemed to perform better in most if not all workloa
Hello,
Quoting Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No problem -- just to be clear: in 7, users can still choose between
> libpthread (m:n) and libthr (1:1), but the default is now libthr rather than
> libpthread, as libthr seemed to perform better in most if not all workloads
> of
> interest.
I
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
(Also when I run 4 threads with 2 cpus, each with hyperthreading, it goes
2.5 to 3 times faster - surprising since hyperthreading gets quite bad press
for its performance improvements - I should add that Linux didn't do at all
well at takin
2007/11/25, Stephen Montgomery-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> 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 be
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 ke
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Kip Macy wrote:
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
> >>
> >> 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
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, 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
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 bett
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 core
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, Christopher Chen wrote:
On Nov 25, 2007 12:05 PM, Christopher Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 25, 2007 3:13 AM, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At this point, Giant is gradually becoming a lock around the tty, newbus,
usb, and msdosfs code, and we're large
On Nov 25, 2007 3:13 AM, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At this point, Giant is gradually becoming a lock around the tty, newbus, usb,
> and msdosfs code, and we're largely at diminishing returns in terms of making
> improvements in parallelism through removing Giant. In FreeBSD 7, the
On Nov 25, 2007 12:05 PM, Christopher Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 2007 3:13 AM, Robert Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > At this point, Giant is gradually becoming a lock around the tty, newbus,
> > usb,
> > and msdosfs code, and we're largely at diminishing returns in terms o
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007, binto wrote:
From what I read in "The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD Operating
System",said:
'However, most of the heavily used parts of the kernel have been moved out
from under the giant lock, including much of the virtual memory system, the
networking stack
Hi,
>From what I read in "The Design and Implementation of the FreeBSD
Operating System",said:
'However, most of the heavily used parts of the kernel have been moved out
from under the giant lock, including much of the virtual memory system,
the networking stack, and the filesystem.'
What the dif
16 matches
Mail list logo
