If you are doing this from C and can access the raw memory, an inproc socket can pass pointers around. If you are using a managed language or one where accessing raw memory is difficult, you’ll want to figure out how to “fake” passing a pointer (or an object reference). In your case it seems like serializing/deserializing would be a big performance hit. That said, if that is the direction you must go then pick something fast like msgpack as your serializer.
On Jan 14, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > @AJ No, but I understand exactly why you suggested that. It's because I > haven't explained that thread 1 is doing critical work and it needs to > offload tasks to other threads as quickly as possible. > > @Lindley, Thanks so much for helping me see the truth! I was getting awful > confused considering all the different bolony that could go on if I was stuck > with semaphores, and I couldn't really re-envision it. Is there any kind of > convenience function or core utility for de-serializing the data you receive > over inproc messages? > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:49 PM, AJ Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > In the zeromq example, couldn't you just skip thread 1 entirely? Then the > PULL socket from thread 2 takes uncompressed input from the source, > compresses it, and shoves it out the PUSH socket to thread 3 for output. > > In this case, the PULL socket is the uncompressed pool and the PUSH socket > is the compressed pool. Just make sure your uncompressed pool doesn't fill > up faster than thread 2 can compress it, or you'll need to implement some > logic to prevent it from using up all the memory. > > AJ > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 01:16:32PM -0500, Lindley French wrote: > > In this case your "buffers" are really just messages, aren't they? A thread > > grabs one (receives a message), processes it, and writes the result into > > another buffer (sends a message). > > > > The hard part is that ZeroMQ sockets don't like to be touched by multiple > > threads, which complicates the many-to-many pattern you have going here. > > I'm no expert, but I would suggest.... > > > > Each "pool", A and B, becomes a single thread with two ZMQ inproc sockets, > > one push and one pull. These are both bound to well-known endpoints. All > > the thread does is continually shove messages from the pull socket to the > > push socket. > > > > Each thread in "Thread set 1" has a push inproc socket connected to pool > > A's pull socket. > > > > Each thread in "Thread set 2" has a pull inproc socket connected to pool > > A's push socket and a push inproc socket connected to pool B's pull socket. > > For each message it receives, it just processes it and spits it out the > > other socket. > > > > The thread in "Thread set 3" has a pull inproc socket connected to pool B's > > push socket. It just continually receives messages and outputs them. > > > > This may seem complicated because concepts that were distinct before > > (buffer pools and worker threads) are now the same thing: they're both just > > threads with sockets. The critical difference is that the "buffer pools" > > bind to well-known endpoints, so you can only have a few of them, while the > > worker threads connect to those well-known endpoints, so you can have as > > many as you like. > > > > Will this perform as well as your current code? I don't know. Profile it > > and find out. > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Kenneth Adam Miller < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So, I have two pools of shared buffers; pool A, which is a set of buffers > > > of uncompressed data, and pool B, for compressed data. I three sets of > > > threads. > > > > > > Thread set 1 pulls from pool A, and fills buffers it receives from pool A > > > up with uncompressed data. > > > > > > Thread set 2 is given a pool from A that has recently been filled. It > > > pulls a buffer from pool B, compresses from A into B, and then returns the > > > buffer it was given, cleared, back to pool A. > > > > > > Thread set 3 is a single thread, that is continually handed compressed > > > data from thread set 2, which it outputs. When data is finished output, it > > > returns the buffer to pool B, cleared. > > > > > > Can anybody describe a scheme to me that will allow thread sets 1 & 2 to > > > scale? > > > > > > Also, suppose for pools A and B, I'm using shared queues that are just C++ > > > stl lists. When I pop from the front, I use a lock for removal to make > > > sure > > > that removal is deterministic. When I enqueue, I use a separate lock to > > > ensure that the internals of the STL list is respected (don't want two > > > threads receiving iterators to the same beginning node, that would > > > probably > > > corrupt the container or cause data loss, or both). Is this the > > > appropriate > > > way to go about it? Thread sets 1 & 2 will likely have more than one > > > thread, but there's no guarantee that thread sets 1 & 2 will have equal > > > threads. > > > > > > I was reading the ZeroMQ manual, and I read the part about multi-threading > > > and message passing, and I was wondering what approaches should be taken > > > with message passing when data is inherently shared between threads. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > zeromq-dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > > -- > AJ Lewis > Software Engineer > Quantum Corporation > > Work: 651 688-4346 > email: [email protected] > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > The information contained in this transmission may be confidential. Any > disclosure, copying, or further distribution of confidential information is > not permitted unless such privilege is explicitly granted in writing by > Quantum. Quantum reserves the right to have electronic communications, > including email and attachments, sent across its networks filtered through > anti virus and spam software programs and retain such messages in order to > comply with applicable data security and retention requirements. Quantum is > not responsible for the proper and complete transmission of the substance of > this communication or for any delay in its receipt. > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev > > _______________________________________________ > zeromq-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
