From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 17:19:25 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <d28d3f9a28454e67a15e36ee8e7b28b9@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOw7k5gmTxRYWPQxYcEUqpYuL2+n_0imBPcZyEWq0Y88cav-mw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <64cc61c082febe489ac3244473bb4ca4@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<CAOw7k5gmTxRYWPQxYcEUqpYuL2+n_0imBPcZyEWq0Y88cav-mw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] userspace semlocks
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 80fc1294-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> On 22 September 2013 03:55, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >         new     1.55e10         O=10    M=8
> >         old     2.74e10
> >
> >         new     3.64e10         O=0     M=8
> >         old     5.14e10
> >
> > am i doing something fundamental wrong, or are the new locks substantially
> > slower than the old ones?
> >
>
> In those cases, the new times seem to be quite a bit faster, more than they
> are slower in the cases you found
> slower, which involved only one process (if I understand the tests)

data entry error.  swap new and old for these cases.  i confused myself
by not calling them semlocks and taslocks in the email.

- erik