From: Gerd Stolpmann <info@gerd-stolpmann.de>
To: yminsky@cs.cornell.edu
Cc: Caml Mailing List <caml-list@inria.fr>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Re: Efficient I/O with threads
Date: Wed, 25 May 2005 12:24:45 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1117016685.6326.44.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <891bd339050524184221de71b8@mail.gmail.com>
Am Dienstag, den 24.05.2005, 21:42 -0400 schrieb Yaron Minsky:
> An addendum. One thing that was pointed out to me in some private
> emails was that buffering could solve the problem on the reading side
> as well. That is true, as far as it goes --- that's why I said that
> I can't think of a _clean_ way of handling it. One of the nice things
> about ocaml IO channels is that they handle buffering, and it seems a
> shame to have to reimplement buffering on top of them.
>
> Put another way, the problem with input/output channels appears to be
> that the buffering is done on the wrong side of the lock. You
> shouldn't have to do any locking to do IO when the request can be
> satisfied from the buffer. The fact that IO channels always require
> you to acquire the lock means that the performance is crappy unless
> you bundle up writes by yourself.
>
> Fixing this is perhaps too deep of a change to drive into the OCaml
> system at this point. Is this a problem that is addressed by the I/O
> channels provided by any other library such as extlib?
I just looked into the sources of the OCaml runtime. The additional work
to lock/unlock the I/O channels is very, very small, just a
pthread_mutex_lock and a pthread_mutex_unlock for every operation. What
counts more is the general overhead for the multi-threading machinery.
For every blocking system call a lot of additional overhead is
necessary.
As an alternative, you can try the object channels of Ocamlnet. With
let in_ch =
Netchannels.lift_in (`Raw (new Netchannels.input_descr in_fd))
and
let out_ch =
Netchannels.lift_out (`Raw (new Netchannels.output_descr out_fd))
you get object channels over the file descriptors in_fd, out_fd that
implement buffers by O'Caml code and work much like the built-in
channels. These channels aren't protected against concurrent usage, and
may be more light-weight because of this.
Gerd
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerd Stolpmann * Viktoriastr. 45 * 64293 Darmstadt * Germany
gerd@gerd-stolpmann.de http://www.gerd-stolpmann.de
------------------------------------------------------------
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-05-25 10:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-05-24 22:14 Yaron Minsky
2005-05-25 1:42 ` Yaron Minsky
2005-05-25 2:12 ` [Caml-list] " Nicolas Cannasse
2005-05-25 10:24 ` Gerd Stolpmann [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1117016685.6326.44.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=info@gerd-stolpmann.de \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
--cc=yminsky@cs.cornell.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox