[PING][PATCH 5/6][BZ #11588] x86_64: Remove assembly implementations for pthread_cond_*

[Ondřej Bílka]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 06:36:40PM +0200, Torvald Riegel wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-07-29 at 19:31 -0500, gratian.crisan@ni.com wrote: 
> > From: Gratian Crisan <gratian.crisan@ni.com>
> > C implementation, dual core Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU E3825 @ 1.33GHz, gcc 4.7.3
> > pthread_cond_[test]     iter/threads   mean       min    max        std. dev
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > signal (w/o waiters)    1000000/100    95.077     90     28960      33.3326
> > broadcast (w/o waiters) 1000000/100    114.874    90     13820      78.6426
> > signal                  1000000/1      6704.17    3510   49390      3537.21
> > broadcast               1000000/1      6726.35    3850   55430      3297.21
> > signal/wait             100000/100     16888.2    12240  6682020    15045.4
> > signal/timedwait        100000/100     19246.6    13560  6874950    15969.5
> > broadcast/wait          100000/100     17228.5    12390  6461480    14780.2
> > broadcast/timedwait     100000/100     19414.5    13910  6656950    15681.8
> > 
> > Assembly implementation, dual core Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU E3825 @ 1.33GHz
> > pthread_cond_[test]     iter/threads   mean       min    max        std. dev
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > signal (w/o waiters)    1000000/100    263.81     70     120171680  90138
> > broadcast (w/o waiters) 1000000/100    264.213    70     160178010  91861.4
> > signal                  1000000/1      15851.7    3800   13372770   13889
> > broadcast               1000000/1      16095.2    5900   14940170   16346.7
> > signal/wait             100000/100     33151      7930   252746080  475402
> > signal/timedwait        100000/100     34921.1    10950  147023040  270191
> > broadcast/wait          100000/100     33400.2    11810  247194720  455105
> > broadcast/timedwait     100000/100     35022.1    13610  161552720  30328
> 
> It seems the assembly implementation (or the runs where you used it)
> suffer from very large delays which seem to be outliers; max is several
> orders of magnitude higher.  This seems to be the case on the Xeon too
> to some extent.

Did you do retesting? Also you could try to printf data to file and see
what happened.