Am 27.11.2014 um 17:40 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 27/11/2014 11:27, Peter Lieven wrote:
+static __thread struct CoRoutinePool {
+Coroutine *ptrs[POOL_MAX_SIZE];
+unsigned int size;
+unsigned int nextfree;
+} CoPool;
The per-thread ring unfortunately didn't work well last time
Am 28.11.2014 um 11:28 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 09:13, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 27.11.2014 um 17:40 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 27/11/2014 11:27, Peter Lieven wrote:
+static __thread struct CoRoutinePool {
+Coroutine *ptrs[POOL_MAX_SIZE];
+unsigned int size;
+unsigned
master:
Run operation 4000 iterations 12.851414 s, 3112K operations/s, 321ns per
coroutine
paolo:
Run operation 4000 iterations 11.951720 s, 3346K operations/s, 298ns per
coroutine
Nice. :)
Can you please try coroutine: Use __thread … together, too? I still
see 11% time
Am 28.11.2014 um 12:14 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
master:
Run operation 4000 iterations 12.851414 s, 3112K operations/s, 321ns per
coroutine
paolo:
Run operation 4000 iterations 11.951720 s, 3346K operations/s, 298ns per
coroutine
Nice. :)
Can you please try coroutine: Use __thread
On 28/11/2014 12:21, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 28.11.2014 um 12:14 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
master:
Run operation 4000 iterations 12.851414 s, 3112K operations/s, 321ns
per coroutine
paolo:
Run operation 4000 iterations 11.951720 s, 3346K operations/s, 298ns
per coroutine
Nice. :)
Am 28.11.2014 um 12:23 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 12:21, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 28.11.2014 um 12:14 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
master:
Run operation 4000 iterations 12.851414 s, 3112K operations/s, 321ns
per coroutine
paolo:
Run operation 4000 iterations 11.951720 s, 3346K
Am 28.11.2014 um 12:23 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 12:21, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 28.11.2014 um 12:14 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
master:
Run operation 4000 iterations 12.851414 s, 3112K operations/s, 321ns
per coroutine
paolo:
Run operation 4000 iterations 11.951720 s, 3346K
Am 28.11.2014 um 12:32 schrieb Peter Lieven:
Am 28.11.2014 um 12:23 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 12:21, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 28.11.2014 um 12:14 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
master:
Run operation 4000 iterations 12.851414 s, 3112K operations/s, 321ns
per coroutine
paolo:
Run
On 28/11/2014 12:32, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 28.11.2014 um 12:23 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 12:21, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 28.11.2014 um 12:14 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
master:
Run operation 4000 iterations 12.851414 s, 3112K operations/s, 321ns
per coroutine
paolo:
Run
Am 28.11.2014 um 13:21 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 12:32, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 28.11.2014 um 12:23 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 12:21, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 28.11.2014 um 12:14 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
master:
Run operation 4000 iterations 12.851414 s, 3112K
On 28/11/2014 12:46, Peter Lieven wrote:
I get:
Run operation 4000 iterations 9.883958 s, 4046K operations/s, 247ns per
coroutine
Ok, understood, it steals the whole pool, right? Isn't that bad if we have
more
than one thread in need of a lot of coroutines?
Overall the algorithm
Am 28.11.2014 um 13:26 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 12:46, Peter Lieven wrote:
I get:
Run operation 4000 iterations 9.883958 s, 4046K operations/s, 247ns per
coroutine
Ok, understood, it steals the whole pool, right? Isn't that bad if we have
more
than one thread in need of a
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:27:06AM +0100, Peter Lieven wrote:
diff --git a/iothread.c b/iothread.c
index 342a23f..b53529b 100644
--- a/iothread.c
+++ b/iothread.c
@@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
#include qom/object_interfaces.h
#include qemu/module.h
#include block/aio.h
+#include block/coroutine.h
On 28/11/2014 13:39, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 28.11.2014 um 13:26 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 12:46, Peter Lieven wrote:
I get:
Run operation 4000 iterations 9.883958 s, 4046K operations/s, 247ns
per coroutine
Ok, understood, it steals the whole pool, right? Isn't that bad if
Am 28.11.2014 um 13:45 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 13:39, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 28.11.2014 um 13:26 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 12:46, Peter Lieven wrote:
I get:
Run operation 4000 iterations 9.883958 s, 4046K operations/s, 247ns
per coroutine
Ok, understood, it
On 28/11/2014 13:49, Peter Lieven wrote:
Idea:
If the release_pool is full why not put the coroutine in the thread
alloc_pool instead of throwing it away? :-)
Because you can only waste 64 coroutines per thread. But numbers cannot
s/only//
be sneezed at, so it's worth doing it as a
Am 28.11.2014 um 13:39 schrieb Peter Lieven:
Am 28.11.2014 um 13:26 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 12:46, Peter Lieven wrote:
I get:
Run operation 4000 iterations 9.883958 s, 4046K operations/s, 247ns
per coroutine
Ok, understood, it steals the whole pool, right? Isn't that bad if
Am 28.11.2014 um 13:45 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 13:39, Peter Lieven wrote:
Am 28.11.2014 um 13:26 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 12:46, Peter Lieven wrote:
I get:
Run operation 4000 iterations 9.883958 s, 4046K operations/s, 247ns
per coroutine
Ok, understood, it
On 28/11/2014 14:17, Peter Lieven wrote:
The release_pool is not cleanup up on termination I think.
That's not necessary, it is global.
I don't see where you iterate over release_pool and destroy all coroutines?
The OS does that for us when we exit.
Paolo
Am 28.11.2014 um 15:17 schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
On 28/11/2014 14:17, Peter Lieven wrote:
The release_pool is not cleanup up on termination I think.
That's not necessary, it is global.
I don't see where you iterate over release_pool and destroy all coroutines?
The OS does that for us when we
This patch creates a ring structure for the coroutine pool instead
of a linked list. The implementation of the list has the issue
that it always throws aways the latest coroutines instead of the
oldest ones. This is a drawback since the latest used coroutines
are more likely cached than old ones.
On 27/11/2014 11:27, Peter Lieven wrote:
+static __thread struct CoRoutinePool {
+Coroutine *ptrs[POOL_MAX_SIZE];
+unsigned int size;
+unsigned int nextfree;
+} CoPool;
The per-thread ring unfortunately didn't work well last time it was
tested. Devices that do not use
22 matches
Mail list logo
