X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=w2dN0vJhIujlR9S+
	s2AqbkQwUaK7jd5yPR+m2S21lNScaPZzx2t+6kYXLzfv08QCnY/bjmUb7ngwH4a7
	fjo01dEKexZt1hmfENWWnsYkuwxeTR7Pvnqi2Gu7I/Pv9G2p0ZZ8drPW5sjpPqb3
	u6kIMutL0JGkfh93j/M39E9b8aA=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date
	:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=vaPknDYS+BVfR2mn4OTACO
	rwsEE=; b=XXOi1AdX1JqdKPF2RJXqUNmzSdWn1QbMYcs3BuIuAsRzyYUvLAYIkn
	Kr8ZgCM7cHRFaVPe6aplUwEAnZICaWbN8RCnNIEWWcOGrM8TAoQ02kIsL/Cd39/L
	VE2GXfieK3yzPZXsaipVyEFrAbvtj2jldtVvZhN9GPAOv4tCtyTJg=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	m0.truegem.net
Subject:	Re: Cygwin multithreading performance
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<CABPLASTtRK4mNxh0M_AnZgjJQ15kWPx+L=U=VCU3Wwi7jV_57A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <564E3017 DOT 90205 AT maxrnd DOT com> <CABPLASTLrH_udLuu2F-m5P6dkENW1Z4YHEudp4NG0-FGLJgPMg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <5650379B DOT 4030405 AT maxrnd DOT com> <20151121105301 DOT GE2755 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <5652C402 DOT 7040006 AT maxrnd DOT com> <24780-1448274431-7444 AT sneakemail DOT com> <5653B52B DOT 5000804 AT maxrnd DOT com> <20151126093427 DOT GJ2755 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <5656DDEF DOT 9070603 AT maxrnd DOT com> <5662C199 DOT 7040906 AT maxrnd DOT com> <CABPLAST5EnifrAQ2xKZmohKhyxQHh=K3x3DeCL+BTdHN8nN98w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
From:	Mark Geisert <mark AT maxrnd DOT com>
Message-ID:	<566367C8.5020703@maxrnd.com>
Date:	Sat, 5 Dec 2015 14:40:08 -0800
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0 SeaMonkey/2.39
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<CABPLAST5EnifrAQ2xKZmohKhyxQHh=K3x3DeCL+BTdHN8nN98w@mail.gmail.com>

Kacper Michajlow wrote:
> 2015-12-05 11:51 GMT+01:00 Mark Geisert <mark AT maxrnd DOT com>:
>> Mark Geisert wrote:
>> In the OP's very good testcase the most heavily contended locks, by far, are
>> those internal to git's builtin/pack-objects.c.  I plan to show actual stats
>> after some more cleanup, but I did notice something in that git source file
>> that might explain the difference between Cygwin and MinGW when running this
>> testcase...
>>
>> #ifndef NO_PTHREADS
>>
>> static pthread_mutex_t read_mutex;
>> #define read_lock()             pthread_mutex_lock(&read_mutex)
>> #define read_unlock()           pthread_mutex_unlock(&read_mutex)
>>
>> static pthread_mutex_t cache_mutex;
>> #define cache_lock()            pthread_mutex_lock(&cache_mutex)
>> #define cache_unlock()          pthread_mutex_unlock(&cache_mutex)
>>
>> static pthread_mutex_t progress_mutex;
>> #define progress_lock()         pthread_mutex_lock(&progress_mutex)
>> #define progress_unlock()       pthread_mutex_unlock(&progress_mutex)
>>
>> #else
>>
>> #define read_lock()             (void)0
>> #define read_unlock()           (void)0
>> #define cache_lock()            (void)0
>> #define cache_unlock()          (void)0
>> #define progress_lock()         (void)0
>> #define progress_unlock()       (void)0
>>
>> #endif
>>
>> Is it possible the MinGW version of git is compiled with NO_PTHREADS
>> #defined?  If so, it would mean there's no locking being done at all and
>> would explain the faster execution and near 100% CPU utilization when
>> running under MinGW.
>
> Nah, there is no threading enabled when there is no pthreads. How
> would that work? :D See thread-utils.h
>
> #ifndef NO_PTHREADS
> #include <pthread.h>
>
> extern int online_cpus(void);
> extern int init_recursive_mutex(pthread_mutex_t*);
>
> #else
>
> #define online_cpus() 1
>
> #endif

We're not familiar at all with MinGW.  Could you locate the source for 
MinGW's pthread_mutex_lock() online and give us a link to it?  And BTW, 
which Windows are you running and on what kind of hardware (bitness and 
#CPUS/threads)?

It looks like we're going to have to compare actual pthread_mutex_lock() 
implementations.  Inspecting source is nice but I don't want to be 
chasing a mirage so I really hope there's a pthread_mutex_lock() 
function inside the MinGW git you are running.  gdb could easily answer 
that question.  Could you please do an 'info func pthread_mutex_lock' 
after starting MinGW git under MinGW gdb with a breakpoint at main() (so 
libraries are loaded).

..mark


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -