Re: [patch 00/13] Syslets, "Threadlets", generic AIO support, v3

Evgeniy Polyakov
2007-02-25T18:26:01Z

On Sun, Feb 25, 2007 at 06:54:37PM +0100, Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote:
>
> * Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru> wrote:
>
> > > hm, what tree are you using as a base? The syslet patches are
> > > against v2.6.20 at the moment. (the x86 PDA changes will probably
> > > interfere with it on v2.6.21-rc1-ish kernels) Note that otherwise
> > > the syslet/threadlet patches are for x86 only at the moment (as i
> > > mentioned in the announcement), and the generic code itself contains
> > > some occasional x86-ishms as well. (None of the concepts are
> > > x86-specific though - multi-stack architectures should work just as
> > > well as RISC-ish CPUs.)
> >
> > It is rc1 - and crashes.
>
> yeah. I'm not surprised. The PDA is not set up in create_async_thread()
> for example.

Ok, I will roll back to vanilla 2.6.20 tomorrow.

> > > if you create a threadlet based test-webserver, could you please do
> > > a comparable kevents implementation as well? I.e. same HTTP parser
> > > (or non-parser, as usually the case is with prototypes ;). Best
> > > would be something that one could trigger between threadlet and
> > > kevent mode, using the same binary :-)
> >
> > Ok, I will create such a monster tomorrow :)
> >
> > I will use the same base for threadlet as for kevent/epoll - there is
> > no parser, just sendfile() of the static file which contains http
> > header and actual page.
> >
> > threadlet1 {
> > accept()
> > create threadlet2 {
> > send data
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Is above scheme correct for threadlet scenario?
>
> yep, this is a good first cut. Doing this after the listen() is useful:
>
> int one = 1;
>
> ret = setsockopt(listen_sock_fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_REUSEADDR,
> (char *)&one, sizeof(int));
>
> and i'd suggest to do this after every accept()-ed socket:
>
> int flag = 1;
>
> setsockopt(sock_fd, IPPROTO_TCP, TCP_NODELAY,
> (char *) &flag, sizeof(int));
>
> Do you have any link where i could check the type of HTTP parsing and
> send transport you are (or will be) using? What type of http client are
> you using to measure, with precisely what options?

For example this ones (essentially the same, except that epoll and
kevent are used):
http://tservice.net.ru/~s0mbre/archive/kevent/evserver_kevent.c
http://tservice.net.ru/~s0mbre/archive/kevent/evserver_epoll.c

> > But note, that on my athlon64 3500 test machine kevent is about 7900
> > requests per second compared to 4000+ epoll, so expect a challenge.
>
> single-core CPU i suspect?

Yep.

> > lighhtpd is about the same 4000 requests per second though, since it
> > can not be easily optimized for kevents.
>
> mean question: do you promise to post the results even if they are not
> unfavorable to threadlets? ;-)

If they are too good, I will start searching for bugs and tune my code
first, but eventually of course yes.
In my blog I will post them in 'real-time' even if kevent will
unbelieveably suck.

> if i want to test kevents on a v2.6.20 kernel base, do you have an URL
> for me to try?

I have a git tree at (based on rc1 as requested by Andrew Morton):
http://tservice.net.ru/~s0mbre/archive/kevent/kevent.git/

Or patches at kevent homepage:
http://tservice.net.ru/~s0mbre/old/?section=projects&item=kevent

Direct link to the latest patchset:
http://tservice.net.ru/~s0mbre/archive/kevent/kevent-37/

(order is insignificant as far as I recall, except 'compile-fix',
whcih must be the latest).

> Ingo

--
Evgeniy Polyakov