From: Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
To: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Severe loss of performance due to new signal handling
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:39:19 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060320103919.GA1167@first.in-berlin.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <441E760D.6010801@inria.fr>
On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 10:29:49AM +0100, Xavier Leroy wrote:
> > It seems that changes to signal handling between OCaml 3.08.4 and 3.09.1
> > can lead to a very significant loss of performance (up to several orders
> > of magnitude!) in code that uses threads and performs I/O (tested on
> Linux).
> > [...]
> > Maybe some assembler guru can repeat this result and explain to us
> > what's going on...
>
> Short explanation: atomic instructions are dog slow.
>
> Longer explanation:
>
> OCaml 3.09 fixed a number of long-standing bugs in signal handling
> that could cause signals to be "lost" (not acted upon). The fixes,
[...]
> Now, you may wonder why the problem appears mainly with threaded
> programs. The reason is that programs linked with the Thread library,
> even if they do not create threads, check for signals much more
> often, because they enter and leave blocking sections more often. In
> your example, each call to "print_char" needs to lock and unlock the
> stdout channel, causing two signal polls each time.
Is this really necessary? Doing a write to stdout with
locking... if not explicitly wanted?!
> So, it's time to go back to the drawing board. Fortunately, it
> appears that reliable polling of signals is possible without atomic
> processor instructions. Expect a fix in 3.09.2 at the latest, and
> probably within a couple of weeks in the CVS.
I'm not clear about what your proble is with lost signals,
but when using signals on Unix/Linux-systems, you can use
UNIX-API, with sigaction/sigprocmask etc. you can do things well,
and with the signal-function which C provides things are bad/worse.
The C-API signal-function signal(3) clears out the signal handler
after a call to it. In the sigaction/sigprocmask/... functions
the handler remains installed.
But if this is what you think about (and how it will be done
on windows or other systems) I don't know, but maybe this is
a hint that matters.
BTW: I saw that in the Unix-module the unix-signalling functions are
now included... (the ywere not on older versions of Ocaml).
Ciao,
Oliver
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-20 10:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-17 18:39 Markus Mottl
2006-03-17 19:10 ` [Caml-list] " Christophe TROESTLER
2006-03-20 9:29 ` Xavier Leroy
2006-03-20 10:39 ` Oliver Bandel [this message]
2006-03-20 12:37 ` Gerd Stolpmann
2006-03-20 13:13 ` Oliver Bandel
2006-03-20 15:54 ` Xavier Leroy
2006-03-20 16:15 ` Markus Mottl
2006-03-20 16:24 ` Will Farr
2006-03-21 1:33 ` Robert Roessler
2006-03-21 3:11 ` Markus Mottl
2006-03-21 4:04 ` Brian Hurt
2006-03-21 12:54 ` Robert Roessler
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=20060320103919.GA1167@first.in-berlin.de \
--to=oliver@first.in-berlin.de \
--cc=caml-list@inria.fr \
/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