This is the mail archive of the java@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the Java project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: libgcj and the NPTL posix threads implementation


I'm surprised that pthread mutexes are that significant.  That may suggest a
configuration problem. 

The collector does use pthread mutexes in the gcj configuration.  But that's because
thread-local allocation is enabled, and the small object allocations should not
normally involve locking. 

Is this a benchmark that allocates primarily larger objects?  The maximum size
for thread-local allocation is fairly small (512bytes?).  Or are you creating
lots of short-lived threads?

Hans

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Green [mailto:green@redhat.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 12:18 PM
> To: Boehm, Hans
> Cc: 'Michael Koch'; java@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: RE: libgcj and the NPTL posix threads implementation
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 10:15, Boehm, Hans wrote:
> > You might try http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/qprof .  
> I'm biased,
> > but a design goal was to build a quick-and-dirty profiler 
> that's trivial
> > to install and run. 
> 
> Just tried it, and it's pretty neat.
> 
> pthread mutexes do show up in my benchmark at about 15% of the time. 
> They are used extensively by the GC.   Perhaps we could your light
> weight locks here as well.
> 
> AG
> 
> -- 
> Anthony Green <green@redhat.com>
> Red Hat, Inc.
> 


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