[#88240] [Ruby trunk Feature#14759] [PATCH] set M_ARENA_MAX for glibc malloc — sam.saffron@...
Issue #14759 has been updated by sam.saffron (Sam Saffron).
3 messages
2018/08/01
[#88251] Re: [ruby-alerts:8236] failure alert on trunk@P895 (NG (r64134)) — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[email protected] wrote:
3 messages
2018/08/01
[#88305] [Ruby trunk Bug#14968] [PATCH] io.c: make all pipes nonblocking by default — normalperson@...
Issue #14968 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
4 messages
2018/08/06
[#88331] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — samuel@...
Issue #13618 has been updated by ioquatix (Samuel Williams).
3 messages
2018/08/08
[#88342] [Ruby trunk Feature#14955] [PATCH] gc.c: use MADV_FREE to release most of the heap page body — ko1@...
Issue #14955 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
3 messages
2018/08/08
[#88433] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — ko1@...
SXNzdWUgIzEzNjE4IGhhcyBiZWVuIHVwZGF0ZWQgYnkga28xIChLb2ljaGkgU2FzYWRhKS4KCgpX
4 messages
2018/08/10
[#88467] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/08/14
a28xQGF0ZG90Lm5ldCB3cm90ZToKPiBJc3N1ZSAjMTM2MTggaGFzIGJlZW4gdXBkYXRlZCBieSBr
[#88475] [Ruby trunk Misc#14937] [PATCH] thread_pthread: lazy-spawn timer-thread only on contention — ko1@...
Issue #14937 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
3 messages
2018/08/14
[#88491] Re: [ruby-cvs:71466] k0kubun:r64374 (trunk): test_function.rb: skip running test — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[email protected] wrote:
5 messages
2018/08/15
[#88495] Re: [ruby-cvs:71466] k0kubun:r64374 (trunk): test_function.rb: skip running test
— Takashi Kokubun <takashikkbn@...>
2018/08/15
SSBzZWUuIFBsZWFzZSByZW1vdmUgdGhlIHRlc3QgaWYgdGhlIHRlc3QgaXMgdW5uZWNlc3Nhcnku
[#88496] Re: [ruby-cvs:71466] k0kubun:r64374 (trunk): test_function.rb: skip running test
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/08/15
Takashi Kokubun <[email protected]> wrote:
[#88523] [Ruby trunk Bug#14999] ConditionVariable doesn't reacquire the Mutex if Thread#kill-ed — eregontp@...
Issue #14999 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).
4 messages
2018/08/17
[#88524] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14999] ConditionVariable doesn't reacquire the Mutex if Thread#kill-ed
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/08/18
[email protected] wrote:
[#88549] [Ruby trunk Bug#14999] ConditionVariable doesn't reacquire the Mutex if Thread#kill-ed — eregontp@...
Issue #14999 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).
3 messages
2018/08/19
[#88676] [Ruby trunk Misc#15014] thread.c: use rb_hrtime_scalar for high-resolution time operations — ko1@...
Issue #15014 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
5 messages
2018/08/27
[#88677] Re: [Ruby trunk Misc#15014] thread.c: use rb_hrtime_scalar for high-resolution time operations
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/08/27
[email protected] wrote:
[#88678] Re: [Ruby trunk Misc#15014] thread.c: use rb_hrtime_scalar for high-resolution time operations
— Koichi Sasada <ko1@...>
2018/08/27
On 2018/08/27 16:16, Eric Wong wrote:
[#88716] Re: [ruby-dev:43715] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #595] Fiber ignores ensure clause — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Koichi Sasada wrote:
4 messages
2018/08/29
[#88723] [Ruby trunk Bug#15041] [PATCH] cont.c: set th->root_fiber to current fiber at fork — ko1@...
Issue #15041 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
3 messages
2018/08/29
[#88767] [Ruby trunk Bug#15050] GC after forking with fibers crashes — ko1@...
Issue #15050 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
7 messages
2018/08/31
[#88769] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#15050] GC after forking with fibers crashes
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/08/31
Koichi Sasada <[email protected]> wrote:
[#88770] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#15050] GC after forking with fibers crashes
— Koichi Sasada <ko1@...>
2018/08/31
[#88773] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#15050] GC after forking with fibers crashes
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/08/31
Koichi Sasada <[email protected]> wrote:
[#88774] Re: [ruby-alerts:8955] failure alert on trunk@P895 (NG (r64594)) — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[email protected] wrote:
3 messages
2018/08/31
[ruby-core:88350] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
From:
Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date:
2018-08-08 08:48:59 UTC
List:
ruby-core #88350
[email protected] wrote: > I've been playing around with my gem async and I've come to > the conclusion that it is a great way to do IO, but it does > have some cases that need to be considered carefully. Right. > In particular, when handling HTTP/2 with multiple streams, > it's tricky to get good performance because utilising multiple > threads is basically impossible (and this applies to Ruby in > general). With HTTP/1, multiple "streams" could be easily > multiplexed across multiple processes easily. I'm no expert on HTTP/2, but I don't believe HTTP/2 was built for high-throughput in mind. By "high-throughput", I mean capable of maxing out the physical network or storage. At least, multiplexing multiple streams over a single TCP connection doesn't make any sense as a way to improve throughput. Rather, HTTP/2 was meant to reduce latency by avoiding TCP connection setup overhead, and maybe avoiding slow-start-after-idle (by having less idle time). In other words, HTTP/2 aims to make better use of a heavy-in-memory-but-often-idle resource. > What this means is that a single HTTP/2 connection, even with > multiple streams, is limited to a single thread with the > fiver-based/green-thread design. I don't see that is a big deal because of what I wrote above. > I actually see two sids to this: It limits bad connections to > a single thread, which is actually a feature in some ways. On > the other hand, you can't completely depend on multiplexing > HTTP/2 streams to improve performance. Right. > On the other hand, any green-thread based design is probably > going to suffer from this problem, unless a work pool is used > for actually generating responses. In the case of > `async-http`, it exposes streaming requests and responses, so > this isn't very easy to achieve. Exactly. As I've been say all aalong: use different concurrency primitives for different things. fork (or Guilds) for CPU/memory-bound processing; green threads and/or nonblocking I/O for low-throughput transfers (virtually all public Internet stuff), native Threads for high-throughput transfers (local/LAN/LFN). So you could use a green thread to coordinate work to the work pool (forked processes), and still use a green thread to serialize the low-throughput response back to the client. This is also why it's desirable (but not a priority) to be able to migrate green-threads to different Threads/Guilds for load balancing. Different stages of an application response will shift from being CPU/memory-bound to low-throughput trickles. > I've also been thinking about timeouts. > > I've been thinking about adding a general timeout to all > socket operations. The user can set some global default, (or > even set it to nil). When the user calls `io.read` or > `io.write` there is an implicit timeout. I'm not sure if this > is a good approach, but I don't think it's stupid, since `io` > operations are naturally temporal so some kind of default > temporal limit makes sense. Timeout-in-VM [Feature #14859] will be most optimized for apps using the same timeout all around. I'm not sure it's necessary to add a new API for this if we already have what's in timeout.rb Also, adding a timeout arg to every single io.read/io.write call is going to be worse for performance, because every timeout use requires arming/disarming a timer. Whereas a single "Timeout.timeout" call only arms/disarms the timer once. Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>
