Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:29:36 +0200 | From | Jan-Benedict Glaw <> | Subject | Re: 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] | |