Strongly +1 for having some initial benchmark as base before optimizations
are implemented.

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 5:26 PM, Benjamin Mahler <bmah...@apache.org> wrote:

> Which areas does the performance not meet your needs? There are a lot of
> aspects to libprocess that can be optimized, so it would be good to focus
> on each of your particular use cases via benchmarks, this allows us to have
> a shared way to profile and measure improvements.
>
> Copy elimination is one area where a lot of improvement can be made across
> libprocess, note that libprocess was implemented before we had C++11 move
> support available. We've recently made some improvements to update the HTTP
> serving path towards zero-copies but it's not completely done. Can you
> submit patches for the ProcessBase::send() path copy elimination? We can
> have a move overload for ProcessBase::send and have ProtobufProcess::send()
> and encode() perform moves instead of a copy.
>
> With respect to the MessageEncoder, since it's less trivial, you can submit
> a benchmark that captures the use case you care about and we can drive
> improvements using it. I have some suggestions here as well but we can
> discuss once we have the benchmarks committed.
>
> How does that sound to start?
>
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2017 at 7:31 PM, pangbingqiang <pangbingqi...@huawei.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All:
> >
> >   We use libprocess as our underlying communication library, but we find
> > it’s performance don’t meet, we want to optimize it, for example:
> >
> > *  ‘send’ function *implementation one metadata has four times memory
> > copy,
> >
> > *1. ProtobufMessage SerializeToString then processbase ‘encode’ construct
> > string once;*
> >
> > *2. In ‘encode’ function Message body copy again;*
> >
> > *3. In MessageEncoder in order to construct HTTP Request, copy again;*
> >
> > *4.       **MessageEncoder return copy again;*
> >
> >   How to optimize this scenario may be useful.
> >
> >   Also , in libprocess it has so many lock:
> >
> > *1.       **SocketManager:   std::recursive_mutex mutex;*
> >
> > *2.       **ProcessManager:  std::recursive_mutex processes_mutex;*
> *std::recursive_mutex
> > runq_mutex; std::recursive_mutex firewall_mutex;*
> >
> > In particular, everytime event enqueue/dequeue both need to get lock,
> > maybe use lookfree struct is better.
> >
> >
> >
> > If have any optimize suggestion or discussion, please let me know,
> thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > [image: cid:image001.png@01D0E8C5.8D08F440]
> >
> >
> >
> > Bingqiang Pang(庞兵强)
> >
> >
> >
> > Distributed and Parallel Software Lab
> >
> > Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
> >
> > Email:pangbingqi...@huawei.com <sut...@huawei.com>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>



-- 
Cheers,

Zhitao Li

Reply via email to