On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 08:24:10 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 14:15:18 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 13:09:55 UTC, Etienne Cimon
wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 10:11:36 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
[...]
The Rust mio library doesn't seem to be doing any black
magic. I wonder how libasync could be optimized to match it.
Have you used perf(or similar) to attempt to find bottlenecks
yet?
Extensively. I optimised my D code as much as I know how to.
And that's the same code that gets driven by vibe.d,
boost::asio and mio.
Nothing stands out anymore in perf. The only main difference I
can see is that the vibe.d version has far more cache misses. I
used perf to try and figure out where those came from and
included them in the email I sent to Soenke.
Perf is a bit hard to understand if you've never used it
before, but it's also very powerful.
Oh, I know. :)
Atila
It's possible that those cache misses will be irrelevant when the
requests actually do something, is it not? When a lot of
different requests are competing for cache lines, I'd assume it's
shuffling it enough to change these readings
