On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:08 AM, Davidlohr Bueso <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 02:56 -0300, Felipe Astroza Araya wrote: >> Good aproach. It's like a stack (LIFO) of sched_connections BUT I'd prefer a >> linked list, because it's simpler. You could use just a "free list" and not >> two arrays (stack and queue). When a connection is closed his >> sched_connection is returned to the "free list" (head). >> > > It seems to be this is an overkill and the optimization is too small. We > can always maintain a global variable with the size of current capacity > - since in a threaded context it would require locking which might lead > to contention. Another alternative is to keep a bitmap instead of a new > free_in_queue array. So the bitmap would have a size of work_capacity > each time a slot is occupied, the corresponding bit is set. Bitmaps are > O(1) as well and the overhead is just 1 bit per setting
would be possible to create a test case using bitmaps ? > >> Another issue in mk_scheduler is mk_sched_get_connection(). This function is >> called from mk_conn_write() and mk_sched_remove_client(). The >> mk_sched_get_connection()'s complexity is O(work_capacity), is used two >> times at least in connection life when it could be avoid completely. >> epoll_wait returns a event array and Monkey uses the socket fd as >> epoll_event data. That's wrong decision!, epoll_event data should be the >> sched_connection and NOT the socket fd. It's possible to improve it, but >> need hard work. >> >> El 26-03-2012, a las 1:22, Eduardo Silva escribió: >> >> > Hi, >> > >> > thanks for the patch. Looking with valgrind seems to be optimized a >> > little bit, screenshot here: >> > >> > http://edsiper.linuxchile.cl/sched_optimization_001.png >> > >> > without optimization mk_sched_register() takes 0.40 for 5000 calls, >> > the same situation but for an optimized code takes 0.36. Its an >> > improvement. >> > >> > Dave, Zeus and Max, what do you think about the patch ? >> > >> > cheers, >> > >> > >> > On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 9:43 PM, Mahesh Gondi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> I made some changes to mk_scheduler.c. First I will explain in brief what >> >> I >> >> did before the results. >> >> >> >> In mk_scheduler.c , the mk_sched_register_client serves the purpose of >> >> adding new client requests to the worker thread queue(everything discussed >> >> here happens in the thread context). Adding was done by iterating over the >> >> queue to looking for an available spot to be inserted. When the load on >> >> server is at near max, then this insertion cost rises to O(work_capacity). >> >> >> >> Instead I maintained free spots on the queue(list of client requests >> >> received), in a simple array of size (work_capacity+1) with each element >> >> pointing to an index in queue(first element kept a count of number of free >> >> spots available). Array(arr) contains free spots as pointed by the index >> >> values stored at the position from 1 to arr[0]. Insertion now only takes a >> >> constant time. Hence this has contributed in running monkey a bit cheaper. >> >> Similar modifications are in progress, should help monkey run more and >> >> more >> >> faster . :) >> >> >> >> Below are the results >> >> >> >> Output I got for running with "siege -c 300 -t 30S 127.0.01:2001", >> >> >> >> //WITH CONSTANT TIME INSERTION >> >> Transactions: 18051 hits >> >> Availability: 100.00 % >> >> Elapsed time: 29.96 secs >> >> Data transferred: 23.48 MB >> >> Response time: 0.00 secs >> >> Transaction rate: 602.50 trans/sec >> >> Throughput: 0.78 MB/sec >> >> Concurrency: 2.30 >> >> Successful transactions: 18051 >> >> Failed transactions: 0 >> >> Longest transaction: 0.23 >> >> Shortest transaction: 0.00 >> >> >> >> ============================================ >> >> >> >> //EARLIER >> >> Transactions: 17711 hits >> >> Availability: 100.00 % >> >> Elapsed time: 30.01 secs >> >> Data transferred: 23.04 MB >> >> Response time: 0.00 secs >> >> Transaction rate: 590.17 trans/sec >> >> Throughput: 0.77 MB/sec >> >> Concurrency: 1.18 >> >> Successful transactions: 17711 >> >> Failed transactions: 0 >> >> Longest transaction: 0.17 >> >> Shortest transaction: 0.00 >> >> >> >> i had taken output for each case just after a fresh restart. Reason for >> >> only >> >> ~600 trans/sec is that it was run ec2 t1.small instance. >> >> >> >> Thanks & Regards, >> >> mahesh gondi >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Monkey mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://lists.monkey-project.com/listinfo/monkey >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Eduardo Silva >> > http://edsiper.linuxchile.cl >> > http://www.monkey-project.com >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Monkey mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://lists.monkey-project.com/listinfo/monkey >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Monkey mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.monkey-project.com/listinfo/monkey >> > > -- Eduardo Silva http://edsiper.linuxchile.cl http://www.monkey-project.com _______________________________________________ Monkey mailing list [email protected] http://lists.monkey-project.com/listinfo/monkey
