lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: TSCs are a no-no on i386
On Wed, 2003-07-30 23:50:32 +0200, Petr Vandrovec <vandrove@vc.cvut.cz>
wrote in message <20030730215032.GA18892@vana.vc.cvut.cz>:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 10:28:22PM +0200, Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
> > On Wed, 2003-07-30 20:45:29 +0200, Adrian Bunk <bunk@fs.tum.de>

> And yes, it speeds some workloads a lot. Best to look at code,
> with these instructions you can do couple of operations without
> doing IPC to synchronize with other threads.

Which ones? I am always told "it's faster, then", but nobody really
proofed that. Take some multithreadded apps. How often do they *really*
lock/unlock mutexes, and in which ratio does that compare to their
"normal" computing needs?

If an application's main job is locking/unlocking mutexes, then the
author should possibly think about that. If it's main task is to do the
computational stuff, then I've got no (real) problem with this extra
Linux^Wtax, esp. on those faster boxes...

MfG, JBG

--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbglaw@lug-owl.de . +49-172-7608481
"Eine Freie Meinung in einem Freien Kopf | Gegen Zensur | Gegen Krieg
fuer einen Freien Staat voll Freier Bürger" | im Internet! | im Irak!
ret = do_actions((curr | FREE_SPEECH) & ~(IRAQ_WAR_2 | DRM | TCPA));
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.131 / U:0.184 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site