From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <6b2ae5458c847f6be69571ead32ceeca@terzarima.net> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Unix trampoline? From: Charles Forsyth In-Reply-To: <356618B4-4F07-11D8-B07D-000A95E29604@nas.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-udjtornzkanszjtrpsbqzqapbt" Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 18:02:53 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: c09355e0-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-udjtornzkanszjtrpsbqzqapbt Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit i noticed that when the plan 9 scheduler changed quite some time ago, inferno's interactive responsiveness degraded compared to Windows, where it's quite good; under Plan 9 it was still much better than it was under any Linux variant i've tried. the recent plan 9 scheduler changes improved it, but it's still not as good as it once was. (we've got a fairly objective test for it, so it's a little more than just an impression.) i did change the way some things were done to evade faults in the underlying scheduling (eg, sched_yield can be unhelpful), but something still sticks on some host systems. that's also when i discovered just how appalling Linux's scheduler actually is, and has been years. good source for a good sneer, anyhow. as well as brucee's suggestion about graphics, it might also be different scheduling in MacOSX. Inferno's unusual on most host systems in using possibly many host processes in a single application. that's when you start discovering the (possibly missing) fine print on the various `threads'/processes manual pages... and the implementations. Plan 9 is fairly good with rfork, to pull this back nearer list topic. let me know if you find a good (ie, realistic) test and profile it. --upas-udjtornzkanszjtrpsbqzqapbt Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by lavoro; Sun Jan 25 07:23:52 GMT 2004 Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001) id AD87619ADE; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:23:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.4.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 67BF919ADE; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:23:10 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001) id 4230C19AA8; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:22:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from edoras.nas.com (edoras.nas.com [206.63.100.8]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 966CC19C15 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Sun, 25 Jan 2004 02:22:19 -0500 (EST) Received: from echo.localnet (max2-d08.nas.com [206.63.102.137]) by edoras.nas.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82327EDC65 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:22:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ibook.localnet ([192.168.0.11]) by echo.localnet with esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AkeXb-0006zX-00 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:18:43 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v609) In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <356618B4-4F07-11D8-B07D-000A95E29604@nas.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jack Johnson Subject: Re: [9fans] Unix trampoline? To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.609) Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 23:22:18 -0800 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,REPLY_WITH_QUOTES, USER_AGENT_APPLEMAIL version=2.55 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) On Jan 20, 2004, at 7:24 AM, phillip stanley-marbell wrote: > http://corpus-callosum.com/software.html. > > His Inferno 4e OSX port works splendidly. I just tried it, and it does. What's bizarre is that it seems to run noticeably faster on my wife's iBook than it does on my Athlon under Plan 9. Anyone know of a benchmark I could use? -Jack --upas-udjtornzkanszjtrpsbqzqapbt--