Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
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
Message-ID: <4298DCE7.3050200@familiehaase.de>
Date: Sat, 28 May 2005 23:04:39 +0200
From: "Gerrit P. Haase" <gerrit AT familiehaase DOT de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Serious performance problems (Gerrit/Danny please comment)
References: <4297A14B DOT 9070409 AT plausible DOT org> <20050528131501 DOT V53507 AT logout DOT sh DOT cvut DOT cz> <20050528185720 DOT GA3015 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
In-Reply-To: <20050528185720.GA3015@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes

Christopher Faylor wrote:

> On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 01:24:31PM +0200, Vaclav Haisman wrote:
> 
>>Somebody mentioned that malloc implementation could be the problem. Dunno. I
>>has also crossed my mind that another difference between FreeBSD and Cygwin is
>>implementation of C++ exceptions. Maybe the SJLJ implementation that Cygwin
>>AFAIK uses has too big overhead.
> 
> 
> To test this theory, I just tried replacing Cygwin's "Unwind" functions
> with those from mingw and saw a noticeable speed up in the execution of
> this program.  I did this by extracting the contents of mingw's libgcc
> to a directory and then including unwind-c.o and unwind-sjlj.o on the
> command line when linking the test case.  I had to modify the test case
> by adding these two lines to the bottom:
> 
>   int __mingwthr_key_dtor;
>   int _CRT_MT;
> 
> to avoid undefined symbol errors so this is obviously not intended as a
> complete solution.
> 
> On doing this, the program went from taking 25 seconds to execute to
> taking 7 seconds to execute.  That's still 4x slower than mingw but it
> is, nonetheless, a noticeable difference.

Wow, this is really worth to investigate.

> Gerrit and Danny do you know what the difference between the mingw and
> cygwin implementations of these functions might be?

A quick look shows that there are basically no differences in these two 
files, but there a functions called which are defined in
w32-shared-ptr.c, can you include this as well, please?

These parts are Cygwin only:

#ifdef __CYGWIN__
static void __w32_sharedptr_fixup_after_fork (void);
#endif

[...]

#ifdef __CYGWIN__
           /* recreate atom after fork */
           pthread_atfork (NULL,NULL,__w32_sharedptr_fixup_after_fork);
#endif

[...]

#ifdef __CYGWIN__
static void __w32_sharedptr_fixup_after_fork (void)
{
   if (!__w32_sharedptr_set (__w32_sharedptr))
     abort ();
}
#endif


All the rest (in unwind-*) is shared.  So the Cygwin version is slower
for sure.  I don't know why this is needed for Cygwin and not for MinGW,
Danny?


Gerrit
-- 
=^..^=

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