This is the mail archive of the cygwin-developers@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Quick testfeedback...


On Wed, 2001-09-12 at 02:57, Jason Tishler wrote:
> Rob,
> 
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 11:10:45AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 10:00:11PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> > > I have tested this out on win95 for regressions, but not on NT
> > > unfortunately... If some kind NT/2k user could test this I would be very
> > > appreciative.
> > 
> > I ran your test suite with the latest CVS and then again after applying
> > your patch.
> 
> I also ran the Python regression test for both cases:
> 
>     threads (CVS):   4:55  # latest CVS
>     threads (patch): 3:22  # latest CVS + patch
>     no threads:      2:26  # latest CVS + patch (but shouldn't matter)
>     extra (patch):   0:47  # four extra tests only run in the threaded case
> 
> The above indicates that the use of critical sections instead of mutuxes
> is a big win -- at least for Python.  Additionally, the threaded case
> using critical sections performs almost identically to the non threaded
> one, if one accounts for the extra tests:
> 
>     threads without extra: 2:35  # 3:22 - 0:47
>     no threads:            2:26
> 
> Hence, the threaded case only incurs about a 6% performance penalty.
> Not bad!
> 
> Would you be willing to check in your patch?

Yes, once I get feedback on the earlier reported broadcast fault. A
broken broadcast() will break nearly every pthread app... a bad thing.

Rob


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]