bpo-41273: asyncio's proactor read transport's better performance by using recv_into instead of recv#21439
Closed
tontinton wants to merge 2 commits intopython:masterfrom
Closed
bpo-41273: asyncio's proactor read transport's better performance by using recv_into instead of recv#21439tontinton wants to merge 2 commits intopython:masterfrom
tontinton wants to merge 2 commits intopython:masterfrom
Conversation
96f0f5a to
9553dc1
Compare
By using recv_into instead of recv we do not allocate a new buffer each time _loop_reading calls recv. This betters performance for any stream using proactor (basically any asyncio stream on windows).
By doubling the read buffer size we get better performance.
9553dc1 to
1ce92aa
Compare
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
https://bugs.python.org/issue41270
I got about 120% better performance on
await reader.read()using this branch.The way I tested was writing a server / client:
server.py:client.py: