| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
We have the same function in tevent, no need to duplicate code. More lines just
due to clang-format.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Fri Mar 22 06:07:42 UTC 2024 on atb-devel-224
|
|
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Ralph Boehme <slow@samba.org>
|
|
Reduce the use of globals
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-User(master): Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
Autobuild-Date(master): Mon May 16 23:23:53 CEST 2016 on sn-devel-144
|
|
Signed-off-by: Michael Adam <obnox@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Ira Cooper <ira@samba.org>
|
|
With this pair of programs I did some performance tests of the messaging
system. Guess what -- I found two bugs :-)
See the subsequent patches.
With 1500 msg_source processes I can generate message overload: A
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU L5640 @ 2.27GHz
can receive roughly 100k messages per second. When using
messaging_read_send/recv user/system time is roughly even, a bit more
work done in user space. When using messaging_register, due to less
malloc activity, user space chews a lot less.
By the way: 1.500 helper threads in a blocking sendto() against a single
datagram socket reading as fast as it can (with epoll_wait in between)
only drove the loadavg to 12 on a 24-core machine. So I guess unix domain
datagram sockets are pretty well protected against overload. No thundering
herd or so. Interestingly "top" showed msg_sink at less than 90% CPU,
although it was clearly the bottleneck. But that must be a "top" artifact.
Signed-off-by: Volker Lendecke <vl@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Jeremy Allison <jra@samba.org>
|
