Re: [MirageOS-devel] Problem with Lwt and TCP/IP

[Thomas Gazagnaire <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> It sounds like thereâs no guarantee that the scheduler is going to be run
>> any time soon. With your proposed modification, how similar would a
>> paused thread be to a thread sleeping for 0 seconds?
>> 
> 
> I wrote a test unikernel to compare the performance of pause and sleep
> here [3]. The results are from a cubieboard. In the test Lwt.pause is
> faster than OS.Time.sleep 0.0 on Unix (211k calls per second vs 71k),
> but not in Xen without the patch (3 calls per second vs 110k). With the
> patch it is around 190k vs 129k in Xen.

Not sure to understand why there is differences between Xen and Linux here. 
Maybe a room for performance improvement for our stack.

Interesting numbers though.

Thomas


> 
> The iperf throughput with Lwt.pause+patch seems to be about the same as
> the throughput with OS.Time.sleep though. On my Cubieboard in Xen it
> varies around 6-8000 kbit/s, compared to around 26000 kbit/s without
> pause/sleep.
> 
> 1. https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/blob/master/src/unix/lwt_main.ml
> 2. https://github.com/ocsigen/lwt/blob/master/src/core/lwt.ml#L1190
> 3. https://gist.github.com/MagnusS/089c06913594ebdf21b1#file-results-md
> 
> Magnus
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MirageOS-devel mailing list
> MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel


_______________________________________________
MirageOS-devel mailing list
MirageOS-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xenproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mirageos-devel