[ros-dev] Re: [ros-diffs] [ion] 12774: Add more Critical Section Debug Data and fix two bugs.

[Alex Ionescu]

Robert Shearman wrote:

> Alex Ionescu wrote:
>
>
>
> A call to RtlAllocateHeap doesn't normally result in a kernel-call.

Even without them, heap code is much much slower, then allocating a 
static buffer, because of all the searches and control that must be done.

>
>> I'm thinking about sending a patch to WineDevel... since it's only 
>> two functions to be added and the brute heap calls to be replaced by 
>> the function names, I think it would be easy to integrate.
>
>
>
> For most process-wide critical sections we don't allocate a DebugInfo 
> anyway; we just store the critical section and the DebugInfo structure 
> in the .data section of the DLL and don't call 
> RtlInitializeCriticalSectionAndSpinCount. 

Yes, unfortunately shell32.dll calls RtlDeleteCriticalSection in 
changenotify.c and iconcache.c. I had to remove those calls from the ROS 
tree because the code will think the Debug Data is in a heap and try to 
free it, which raises a warning. I think it's wrong to call them on wine 
too, even if no errors happen, because you shouldn't delete sections you 
statically allocate in your dll .data section.

> So, I don't think it would be that much of a performance improvement 
> for Wine. 

Probabaly minimal, yes, for now.

> Anyway, if you wanted the performance, you should just disable the 
> code that allocates the DebugInfo, like release versions of Windows do.

People keep telling me this, but I have not been able to reproduce this 
behaviour on my retail machines. Perhaps this was in NT4?

> However, patches to manipulate the EntryCount and ContentionCount 
> members would be welcome as they could be useful in identifying 
> performance bottlenecks.

Once my code becomes more stable and stack backtrace gets added, I will 
send everythign to wine, also in hope that they will get rid of the 
static CS and use dynamic ones...its' much cleaner, imo.

>
> Rob 

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu