![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:50, Marcel Zalmanovici wrote: > On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 21:35, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 09:28:13PM +1100, Con Kolivas wrote: > > > Ok I've had a look at the actual program now ;) Are you timing the time > > > it takes to completion of everything? > > > > > > This part of your program: > > > for (i= 0; i<8; i++) > > > pthread_join(tid[i], NULL); > > > > > > Cares about the order the threads finish. Do you think this might be > > > affecting your results? > > > > I don't see why it should matter. Depending on the order the threads > > finish, we will always wait in pthread_join until the last one > > finishes, and then do between 0 and 7 more pthread_joins that should > > return immediately (since the last one has already finished). > > If it was instant it shouldn't matter. I'm aware of that in theory, but > there > have certainly been reports of pthread_join taking quite a while happening > in > a sort of lazy/sloppy way. I don't know why this is the case but I wondered > > if it was showing up here. > > I've looked through the detailed run results and found this: > > Thread DS 0, TID = 7646 > Thread DS 0, TID = 7645 > Thread DS 1, TID = 7648 > Thread DS 1, TID = 7650 > Thread DS 2, TID = 7651 > Thread DS 2, TID = 7652 > Thread DS 3, TID = 7653 > Thread DS 3, TID = 7654 > Main exit ... > real 23.25 > > As you can see except the first 2 threads all finished in order they were > created. With the average being at about 16.5 this is a high result and > thread order was almost ideal. Ok, but how long does pthread_join actually take to complete? Cheers, Con P.S. Lotus notes is terrible for a mailer isn't it? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-11-20 10:53 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||