Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 09:52:31 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: "Scott Hess" <scott@avantgo.com> Cc: <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Performance issue with rfork() and single socketpairs versus multiple socketpairs. Message-ID: <200001251752.JAA04953@apollo.backplane.com> References: <01b601bf6696$60701930$1e80000a@avantgo.com> <200001241939.LAA91219@apollo.backplane.com> <0be801bf6715$601423d0$1e80000a@avantgo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
:OK, so let's say I did spend some time implementing it in terms of semget()
:and semop(). Would you be totally apalled if the performance turned out to
:be about the same as using a single socketpair? Do you have a very strong
:feeling that it should be significantly better. [Again, under
:3.4-release.] I don't think I've done anything egregious, but things don't
:seem much better. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait until tomorrow morning
:to rip things out and make a suitable example program for posting.
:
:Actually, the performance profile does seem different (for lower loads, the
:semaphore solution seems more efficient), but the performance limits seem
:much the same between the single socketpair and semaphore versions when I
:starts using 16-20 worker processes. It's possible that I'm doing
:..
:
:Thanks,
:scott
Well, when all else fails --- go back to individual pipes.
What else could be tried... you could try surrounding the read()
with an flock() pair. I don't know if flock() uses the more optimal
wakeup code or not.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001251752.JAA04953>