[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RPC performance
From: |
Andy Wingo |
Subject: |
Re: RPC performance |
Date: |
Mon, 26 Jun 2017 16:19:30 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) |
On Mon 26 Jun 2017 13:54, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On Fri 23 Jun 2017 11:24, address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>>
>>> With the current protocol, often we’re just reading a handful of bytes.
>>> Full buffering would mean that Guile would block on an 8K read or so
>>> that will never be fulfilled.
>>
>> That's not how it works :) The "read" function of a port should only
>> block if no byte can be read. If 1K bytes are available for an 8K
>> buffer, then the read function should return after filling only 1K
>> bytes; looping to fill at least 8K is some other code's responsibility.
>
> I must be missing something. With full buffering, when my code does:
>
> (get-bytevector-n port 8)
Note that get-bytevector-n will block until there are 8 bytes.
> I see read(2) hanging on an 8K read:
>
> #0 0x00007fb0b36baaed in read () at ../sysdeps/unix/syscall-template.S:84
> #1 0x00007fb0b3b91c47 in fport_read (port=<optimized out>, dst=<optimized
> out>, start=<optimized out>,
> count=8192) at fports.c:604
> #2 0x00007fb0b3bbed77 in scm_i_read_bytes (address@hidden, dst=0x195c000,
> address@hidden,
> count=8192) at ports.c:1544
> #3 0x00007fb0b3bc25fe in scm_fill_input (address@hidden, minimum_size=1,
> address@hidden,
> address@hidden, address@hidden) at ports.c:2677
Here this indicates that the buffer is empty, and that it's blocking on
receiving *any* bytes at all.
> (That’s not Guile-specific.) I agree that read(2) could return less
> than 8K and not block, but it doesn’t have to.
I think this is incorrect. Read returns when it has any bytes at all.
>From read(2):
It is not an error if this number is smaller than the number of
bytes requested; this may happen for example because fewer bytes
are actually available right now (maybe because we were close to
end-of-file, or because we are reading from a pipe, or from a
terminal), or because read() was interrupted by a signal. See
also NOTES.
In short the reason read is blocking for you is that there are no bytes
available -- if there were 8 bytes and only 8 bytes, the read(2) would
return directly.
If you have blocking problems related to 8K buffers, it's likely related
to using get-bytevector-n inside CBIP read() functions.
Andy
- Re: Performance on NFS, (continued)
- Re: Performance on NFS, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/06/18
- RPC performance, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/06/19
- Re: RPC performance, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/06/19
- Re: RPC performance, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/06/19
- Re: RPC performance, Andy Wingo, 2017/06/22
- Re: RPC performance, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/06/22
- Re: RPC performance, Andy Wingo, 2017/06/23
- Re: RPC performance, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/06/23
- Re: RPC performance, Andy Wingo, 2017/06/23
- Re: RPC performance, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/06/26
- Re: RPC performance,
Andy Wingo <=
- Re: RPC performance, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/06/19
- Re: RPC performance, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/06/22
- Re: Combining Guix, direnv and Emacs for environment customisation, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/06/07
- Performance on NFS, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/06/07
- Re: Performance on NFS, Ricardo Wurmus, 2017/06/07