[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Guile's I/O procedures should *not* do thread synchronization
From: |
Mark H Weaver |
Subject: |
Re: Guile's I/O procedures should *not* do thread synchronization |
Date: |
Sun, 06 Apr 2014 02:08:14 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> However, if we promise to do thread synchronization, we will condemn
>>>> Guile to forever having dog slow 'read-char', 'peek-char', 'write-char',
>>>> 'get-u8', 'peek-u8', and 'put-u8' operations.
>>>
>>> I think you are wrong about "dog slow". Uncontended mutexes are fast,
>>
>> I did some benchmarks of 'putchar' vs 'putchar_unlocked' in C, without
>> contention. I think it's fair to assume that the GCC and GLIBC folks
>> did a reasonably good job of making both of these as fast as they could.
>>
>> With gcc -O2, I tested two variants of this program: one with 'putchar'
>> and one with 'putchar_unlocked'. On my YeeLoong (mips64el w/ N32 ABI),
>> the 'putchar_unlocked' version is faster by a factor of 26.3.
>
> On my i7-2620M, the difference is only a factor of 3.0.
>
> Now I think I understand your perspective; 26x is terrible. But surely
> this is an architecture problem, and not a Guile problem? The world
> will only get more multithreaded, and ignoring that does no one any
> service.
Now that I have access to the GCC Compile Farm, I repeated these
benchmarks on a variety of machines, and here are the results:
Ratio CPU
=======================
26.3 Loongson 2F
14.0 PowerPC (Power7)
13.7 Loongson 3A
9.33 ARMv6l
6.47 UltraSparc IIe
5.09 AMD Athlon II
4.27 AMD Opteron
3.46 Core 2 Duo P8600
=======================
Mark
- Re: Guile's I/O procedures should *not* do thread synchronization,
Mark H Weaver <=