Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:57:35 -0400 From: Jason Tishler To: Robert Collins , cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Quick testfeedback... Message-ID: <20010911125735.D1752@dothill.com> Mail-Followup-To: Robert Collins , cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20010911111045.A2160@dothill.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i Rob, On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 11:10:45AM -0400, Jason Tishler wrote: > On Tue, Sep 11, 2001 at 10:00:11PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > > I have tested this out on win95 for regressions, but not on NT > > unfortunately... If some kind NT/2k user could test this I would be very > > appreciative. > > I ran your test suite with the latest CVS and then again after applying > your patch. I also ran the Python regression test for both cases: threads (CVS): 4:55 # latest CVS threads (patch): 3:22 # latest CVS + patch no threads: 2:26 # latest CVS + patch (but shouldn't matter) extra (patch): 0:47 # four extra tests only run in the threaded case The above indicates that the use of critical sections instead of mutuxes is a big win -- at least for Python. Additionally, the threaded case using critical sections performs almost identically to the non threaded one, if one accounts for the extra tests: threads without extra: 2:35 # 3:22 - 0:47 no threads: 2:26 Hence, the threaded case only incurs about a 6% performance penalty. Not bad! Would you be willing to check in your patch? Thanks, Jason