On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, Robert Watson wrote:
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, David Xu wrote:
I found 5% performance decrease on dual P4, maybe P4 is quite bad when
doing atomic operation. ;-) Thanks,
When I've measured, generally, yes, P4 performance has been abysmal for
synchronization operations, both a
On Mon, 3 Jul 2006, David Xu wrote:
I found 5% performance decrease on dual P4, maybe P4 is quite bad when doing
atomic operation. ;-) Thanks,
When I've measured, generally, yes, P4 performance has been abysmal for
synchronization operations, both atomic operations and CPU-local interrupt
di
I found 5% performance decrease on dual P4, maybe P4 is quite bad when
doing atomic operation. ;-)
Unfortunately, the consensus is that the only thing the P4 is better
at is video games.
-Kip
___
freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lis
On Friday 30 June 2006 07:14, Robert Watson wrote:
> Attached, and at the below URL, find an updated copy of the UNIX domain
> socket fine-grained locking patch. Since the last revision, I've updated
> the patch to close several race conditions historically present in UNIX
> domain sockets (which
Attached, and at the below URL, find an updated copy of the UNIX domain socket
fine-grained locking patch. Since the last revision, I've updated the patch
to close several race conditions historically present in UNIX domain sockets
(which should be merged regardless of the rest of the patch),
