From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id UAA21947; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:42:21 +0200 (MET DST) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id UAA21861 for ; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:42:20 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from miss.wu-wien.ac.at (miss.wu-wien.ac.at [137.208.107.17]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.10.0) with ESMTP id f5FIgJX07345; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:42:19 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from mottl@localhost) by miss.wu-wien.ac.at (8.9.0/8.9.0) id UAA11307; Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:42:19 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:42:18 +0200 From: Markus Mottl To: Xavier Leroy Cc: OCAML Subject: Re: [Caml-list] native threads not parallel? Message-ID: <20010615204218.C25835@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> References: <20010615184931.A25835@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> <20010615191046.A20258@pauillac.inria.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20010615191046.A20258@pauillac.inria.fr>; from Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr on Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 19:10:46 +0200 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Xavier Leroy wrote: > The default thread library under Solaris is odd in the sense that, by > default, it doesn't take advantage of more than one processor. (More > specifically, it creates only one "ligthweight process", i.e. kernel > thread, unless more are required for I/O purposes.) Very odd, indeed... > Try to put the > following incantation somewhere in your code: [snip] > If that doesn't help, you might still want to look at how many LWPs > (not user threads) are active in your program, using whatever tools > Solaris provides for this purpose. Thanks for the code, but it unfortunately doesn't change anything (at least not visibly to me). The "ps"-command shows me that there are really four LWPs with different LWP-ids running under the same PID. Or better: only one seems to be actually executing code, the others do not consume LTIME. The "mpstat"-tool tells me that user code consumes both CPUs at 100%, but this means nothing, because the tool counts itself as already consuming the capacity of one processor... Maybe it's a configuration problem of the machine, I don't know, I am not the administrator. In any case, it doesn't seem to depend on my code. If anybody ever tries my Lacaml-library on a machine with multiple processors, I'd like to hear whether it works fine when executed in parallel. Regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl ------------------- Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr