Kurt Miller wrote:
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 03:17:14 pm Kris Kennaway wrote:
Kurt Miller wrote:
David Xu confirmed for me that pthread_yield() does give some
time to lower priority threads on 7.0 using thr. Attached and inline
are two patches for the 1.5 port that is how I suggest the issue
On Tuesday 18 September 2007 03:17:14 pm Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Kurt Miller wrote:
> > David Xu confirmed for me that pthread_yield() does give some
> > time to lower priority threads on 7.0 using thr. Attached and inline
> > are two patches for the 1.5 port that is how I suggest the issue be
> > a
Kurt Miller wrote:
David Xu confirmed for me that pthread_yield() does give some
time to lower priority threads on 7.0 using thr. Attached and inline
are two patches for the 1.5 port that is how I suggest the issue be
addressed.
For 7.0 and up default UseThreadPriorities to true and always
use p
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Kurt Miller wrote:
Daniel Eischen wrote:
I would just totally ignore setting thread priorities
unless the UseThreadPriority knob is set. The kernel
scheduler (for libthr) doesn't seem to care what a thread's
priority is anyways unless it is in the real-time class.
That wa
Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Kurt Miller wrote:
>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> Daniel Eischen wrote:
>>> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Kurt Miller wrote:
>>>
David Xu confirmed for me that pthread_yield() does give some
time to lower priority threads on 7.0 using thr. Attached and inline
>
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Kurt Miller wrote:
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Kurt Miller wrote:
David Xu confirmed for me that pthread_yield() does give some
time to lower priority threads on 7.0 using thr. Attached and inline
are two patches for the 1.5 port that is how I s
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Eischen wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Kurt Miller wrote:
>
>> David Xu confirmed for me that pthread_yield() does give some
>> time to lower priority threads on 7.0 using thr. Attached and inline
>> are two patches for the 1.5 port that is how I suggest the issue be
>> addressed
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Kurt Miller wrote:
David Xu confirmed for me that pthread_yield() does give some
time to lower priority threads on 7.0 using thr. Attached and inline
are two patches for the 1.5 port that is how I suggest the issue be
addressed.
I don't think you should rely on pthread_yie
David Xu confirmed for me that pthread_yield() does give some
time to lower priority threads on 7.0 using thr. Attached and inline
are two patches for the 1.5 port that is how I suggest the issue be
addressed.
For 7.0 and up default UseThreadPriorities to true and always
use pthread_yield(). For <
Kris Kennaway wrote:
Hi,
I have been running the volano java benchmark
(http://www.volano.com/benchmarks.html) on an 8-core i386 system, and
out of the box jdk15 on FreeBSD performs extremely poorly. The system
is more than 90% idle, and profiling shows that the ~800 threads in the
benchmar
Kip Macy wrote:
> Yes, if we could hack the jvm to work around this without calling
> sleep that would be better yet. However, making java work well is more
> important than keeping the interface clean.
One possible alternative is to not honor thread priorities in the
jdk by default. In hotspot/sr
* Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [070916 08:46] wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Kip Macy wrote:
>
> >Or more likely they'll continue to maintain a sched_yield that isn't
> >posix compliant. We may just want to add some sort of interface so the
> >jvm can tell the kernel that sched_yield should b
On 9/16/07, Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Kip Macy wrote:
>
> > Or more likely they'll continue to maintain a sched_yield that isn't
> > posix compliant. We may just want to add some sort of interface so the
> > jvm can tell the kernel that sched_yield should be n
On Saturday 15 September 2007 10:50:50 pm Kurt Miller wrote:
> The following are programs I wrote when I isolated the problem.
> If the c program runs ok on 7.0 for both single cpu and mp then
> remove the os_sleep() and try the java program. If that works too
> then you're clear to make the os_sle
On Saturday 15 September 2007 01:50:13 pm Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have been running the volano java benchmark
> (http://www.volano.com/benchmarks.html) on an 8-core i386 system, and
> out of the box jdk15 on FreeBSD performs extremely poorly. The system
> is more than 90% idle, and profil
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Kip Macy wrote:
Or more likely they'll continue to maintain a sched_yield that isn't
posix compliant. We may just want to add some sort of interface so the
jvm can tell the kernel that sched_yield should be non-compliant for
the current process.
I don't think that is a goo
Kurt Miller wrote:
On Saturday 15 September 2007 10:50:50 pm Kurt Miller wrote:
The following are programs I wrote when I isolated the problem.
If the c program runs ok on 7.0 for both single cpu and mp then
remove the os_sleep() and try the java program. If that works too
then you're clear to m
Or more likely they'll continue to maintain a sched_yield that isn't
posix compliant. We may just want to add some sort of interface so the
jvm can tell the kernel that sched_yield should be non-compliant for
the current process.
On 9/15/07, Daniel Eischen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 15
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Kurt Miller wrote:
Hello Kris,
I recall why I added the os_sleep() call. While working on the certification
testing one of the JCK tests was deadlocking. The test itself was faulty in
that it created a high priority thread in a tight yield loop. Since
pthread_yield() on a s
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007, Kris Kennaway wrote:
Hi,
I have been running the volano java benchmark
(http://www.volano.com/benchmarks.html) on an 8-core i386 system, and out of
the box jdk15 on FreeBSD performs extremely poorly. The system is more than
90% idle, and profiling shows that the ~800 th
Daniel Eischen wrote:
When I removed this hack (i.e. revert to pthread_yield()) I got an
immediate 7-fold performance increase, which brings FreeBSD
performance on par with Solaris.
What is the reason why this code is necessary? Does FreeBSD's
sched_yield() really have different semantics t
Hi,
I have been running the volano java benchmark
(http://www.volano.com/benchmarks.html) on an 8-core i386 system, and
out of the box jdk15 on FreeBSD performs extremely poorly. The system
is more than 90% idle, and profiling shows that the ~800 threads in the
benchmark are spending most of
22 matches
Mail list logo
