From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 013E7BBAF for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:25:38 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AnYBAJ6MMUvRVdzYkGdsb2JhbACDbZcjPwEBAQEJCQwHEwOrN4FbhV6IOwECAwWBKoIuVgSBZYlM X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,441,1257116400"; d="scan'208";a="39228336" Received: from mail-fx0-f216.google.com ([209.85.220.216]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 23 Dec 2009 12:25:37 +0100 Received: by fxm8 with SMTP id 8so6830969fxm.7 for ; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:25:37 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=kOOzeIZfTIh2/wFRrEd14X95FFAbEH6aFdEXjTUAqws=; b=mAMNhNj81+c5OouhqwqT+gl7MXzNdHCoJNMX6wGlzg6iD1/FmUR6A/xXmijO6v/dFo k34gfYVA61nGoAlGB+YQvZbv1KMzlhDqFtwAKyt22R6LkfZvvQ++CoIo2ILB1BiWoZ7G yGeT/xHJKCgMkpJ04CwV9Je2/DzvAJBGXJT98= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=L64srtigh4ty6S0fBYqr862EhubRJ/q40rp8pdAYe0kRfXKRc3CLJs87xfBlUpS3Si Dxxj4lqRhYYpnVsS9G+B4DUFVZMwgwhAo7RwKzPbs5/824qVUWYptWMGEhOq3QClEpsN XSAn1CxjXvcDXmqUrpA6Kk+cZOqsXhIBSMZHQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: rigtorp@gmail.com Received: by 10.223.164.133 with SMTP id e5mr7187543fay.22.1261567537168; Wed, 23 Dec 2009 03:25:37 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1261488446.31160.5.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de> References: <4B2D2BC1.6020204@msu.edu> <200912200443.57698.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <891bd3390912200547i67c3852dv1c91900018fdea9b@mail.gmail.com> <1261488446.31160.5.camel@flake.lan.gerd-stolpmann.de> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:25:37 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 72e8bc098719e9b8 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: OCaml is broken From: Erik Rigtorp To: Gerd Stolpmann Cc: yminsky , caml-list Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam: no; 0.01; ocaml:01 gerd:01 stolpmann:01 gerd:01 sockets:01 loopback:01 scheduler:01 erlang:01 2009:98 dienstag:98 2009:98 50,:98 shm:98 utilizes:98 shm:98 On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 14:27, Gerd Stolpmann wrot= e: > > Am Dienstag, den 22.12.2009, 13:04 +0100 schrieb Erik Rigtorp: >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 23:50, Erik Rigtorp wrote: >> > Some IPC Benchmarks, Solaris 10 on a quad core Intel Core2 Duo. The >> > benchmarks are running on a cpuset with 1 core. I measure the time >> > from sending in one process until the other process receives the >> > message. So a context switch and the message passing is included in >> > the measurements. >> > >> > Max/Min/Avg >> > * Pipes: 28205/5973/6259 >> > * Unix domain sockets: 44256/7748/8153 >> > * SYSv message queues: 19197/5895/6173 >> > * Posix message queues: 37399/10965/11303 >> > * TCP on loopback: 29017/7471/7885 >> > >> > So the latency is roughly 10=C2=B5s for all these solutions. That late= ncy >> > is pretty high and would be several times the processing time of the >> > message itself. >> >> Some more benchmarks: >> >> Max/Min/Avg >> * Spinlocking shm: 50897/403/761 =C2=A0(This one utilizes multiple cores= , >> since one core is just burning while waiting for data) >> * Pthreads mutex shm: 27582/5246/6577 >> >> Forgot to say that all measurements are in nanoseconds. > > That's for communication between processes, right? How would the picture > be different (especially comparing the latter two) if you do message > passing between threads? If I remember correctly, threads are more > light-weight in Solaris than processes. That could also affect context > switching times, and scheduler decisions. With a system supporting green threads/tasklets/erlang processes over multiple cores you can have 1=C2=B5s message passing latencies without busy waiting. I'll checkout the thread message passing too, but probably not until after new years. > Do you have source code? I could also run in on Linux, for comparison. I'll have that approved by my company first. It would actually be interesting to create a open source multiplatform IPC message passing benchmark. Erik