Re: Threads not waking on pthread_cond_signal()

Jakub Jelinek <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lib.phil
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 01:11:00PM +1000, Ian Wienand wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 22, 2003 at 06:42:03PM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> > > I am seeing a problem on PowerPC and i386 with NPTL 0.47 where a
> > > thread waiting in pthread_cond_wait() doesn't get woken up on
> > > pthread_cond_signal().
> > 
> > What kernel are you using?
> 
> 2.5.72 -- but I get correct behaviour with NPTL 0.48 so it was
> probably me.
> 
> However, i386 does seem to be a lot slower signalling threads than the
> NPTL included in RedHat 9.
> 
> RUNNING REDHAT 9 WAKEUP TEST
> 718674 wakes ups in 4.99956 sec = 143748 per second
> 861807 wakes ups in 5 sec       = 172361 per second
> 841964 wakes ups in 5.00006 sec = 168391 per second
> 816596 wakes ups in 5.00003 sec = 163318 per second
> 624066 wakes ups in 5.00004 sec = 124812 per second
> 
> RUNNING NPTL 0.48 WAKEUP TEST
> 114766 wakes ups in 4.99935 sec = 22956 per second
> 168681 wakes ups in 4.99996 sec = 33736 per second
> 286987 wakes ups in 4.99985 sec = 57399 per second
> 286391 wakes ups in 4.99962 sec = 57283 per second
> 337517 wakes ups in 5.00024 sec = 67500 per second

Is this 2.5.72 on i386 as well or some other kernel?
On kernels which don't support FUTEX_REQUEUE current NPTL is certainly
expected to be slower (as FUTEX_REQUEUE syscalls are attempted
unconditionally).

	Jakub
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.