Lee Chin <email@example.com> wrote:
> Larry McVoy wrote:
>> > Now, to cater to 700 clients, I can
>> > a) launch 700 threads that each block on I/O to disk and to the client (in
>> > reading and writing on the socket)
>> > OR
>> > b) Write an asycnhrounous system with only 2 or three threads where I manage the
>> > connections and stack (via setcontext swapcontext etc), which is
>> > programatically a little harder
>> > Which way will yeild me better performance, considerng both approaches are
>> > implemented optimally?
>> If this is a serious question, an async system will by definition do better.
>> You have either 700 stacks screwing up the data cache or 2-3 stacks nicely
>> fitting in the data cache. Ditto for instruction cache, etc.
> Thanks for the rpely... my question was more so, with setcontext and swapcontext, I
> will still be messing with the data cache right?
> In otherwords, as long as I have an async system with out setcontext, I know I am
> good... but with it, havent I degraded to a threaded environment?
I suspect Linux's implementation of asynch I/O isn't able to handle sockets yet.
Thus the choice is between nonblocking I/O and blocking I/O.
Nonblocking I/O is totally the way to go if you have full control over your
source code and want the maximal performance in userspace. The best way
to get good performance with nonblocking I/O in Linux is to use the sys_epoll
system call; it's part of the 2.5 kernel, but a backport to 2.4 is available.
See http://www.kegel.com/c10k.html for an overview of the issue and some links.
-- Dan Kegel http://www.kegel.com http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 22:00:32 EST