Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5715200BC3 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 14:52:58 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id D302D160AFE; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 13:52:58 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D4F2160B0B for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 14:52:58 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 83849 invoked by uid 500); 3 Nov 2016 13:52:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@qpid.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: users@qpid.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list users@qpid.apache.org Received: (qmail 83772 invoked by uid 99); 3 Nov 2016 13:52:56 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Nov 2016 13:52:56 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 2D1D7C12AB for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 13:52:56 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.279 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.279 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[HTML_MESSAGE=2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NZiMv4OREY2k for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 13:52:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from BAY004-OMC1S3.hotmail.com (bay004-omc1s3.hotmail.com [65.54.190.14]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 3BADD5FCA2 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 13:52:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from EUR01-VE1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([65.54.190.61]) by BAY004-OMC1S3.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Thu, 3 Nov 2016 06:52:26 -0700 Received: from VE1EUR01FT050.eop-EUR01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.2.56) by VE1EUR01HT034.eop-EUR01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.2.175) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.693.6; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 13:52:23 +0000 Received: from VI1PR0901MB0893.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com (10.152.2.52) by VE1EUR01FT050.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.3.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.693.6 via Frontend Transport; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 13:52:23 +0000 Received: from VI1PR0901MB0893.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.199.9]) by VI1PR0901MB0893.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com ([10.167.199.9]) with mapi id 15.01.0693.016; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 13:52:23 +0000 From: Adel Boutros To: "users@qpid.apache.org" Subject: Re: [Proton-c] [0.14.0] [0.15.0] Event_loop injection is very slow compared to timer schedule Thread-Topic: [Proton-c] [0.14.0] [0.15.0] Event_loop injection is very slow compared to timer schedule Thread-Index: AQHSNS3ObTLWehZSoUmhI4QccQJ1S6DF860AgAFUdJI= Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 13:52:23 +0000 Message-ID: References: ,<1478107920.5658.80.camel@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1478107920.5658.80.camel@redhat.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: authentication-results: qpid.apache.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;qpid.apache.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=live.com; x-incomingtopheadermarker: OriginalChecksum:;UpperCasedChecksum:;SizeAsReceived:7432;Count:38 x-tmn: [Lmwlh/qFo5IOW5zzHCAFcWmkmeEpjnf4049LV2JINN8=] x-incomingheadercount: 38 x-eopattributedmessage: 0 x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1;VE1EUR01HT034;7:KhzlCbmUcaCVq2FFZkA6iyetAeOte8BAacETl7SKujCkJVIgaM3BNqdA5Km/+nabo3pYORoqCNLPHgiyemktUrksG4lifumy2ia3lt2/rFJtyuaO4by3QZ5EwsFm4ZKC+i4ZnNyxWUdoJK/TsQRjfv5TFwaSiQfJCTX+9dA3J6rwjn+XkTTrzwIrNMO74EzU1vtBR3OB+GyAAG09znyaeFGr0RIXYV92Ep6vCmXPbMxJk/DmxnhPXJ3F6jljE4nxPXuibE+kYPV49oWfjR1uE/6uTQxZ6iJxH65jHKjVGjpBz9nAhaoEgl8DzxjbohFdkembia52JJTvMvHEmtmoznGpyFQ+2bmqGw+Ta5fSIDE= x-forefront-antispam-report: EFV:NLI;SFV:NSPM;SFS:(10019020)(98900003);DIR:OUT;SFP:1102;SCL:1;SRVR:VE1EUR01HT034;H:VI1PR0901MB0893.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com;FPR:;SPF:None;LANG:en; x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: aea123b2-1d14-487b-6fa7-08d403f0a383 x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(1601124038)(1603103081)(1601125047);SRVR:VE1EUR01HT034; x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:(432015012)(82015046);SRVR:VE1EUR01HT034;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:VE1EUR01HT034; x-forefront-prvs: 011579F31F spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99 spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_VI1PR0901MB089397E004BA8A6C834BC938CDA30VI1PR0901MB0893_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginatorOrg: live.com X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 03 Nov 2016 13:52:23.4915 (UTC) X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: VE1EUR01HT034 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Nov 2016 13:52:26.0174 (UTC) FILETIME=[828ED5E0:01D235D9] archived-at: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 13:52:59 -0000 --_000_VI1PR0901MB089397E004BA8A6C834BC938CDA30VI1PR0901MB0893_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello Alan, Issue created and test case attached in the JIRA. You need to have a runnin= g broker for the code to run. The functor just closes the connection and it= takes 1.15 seconds for the "on_connection_closed" to be called. The timer = is started when the functor code is called. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROTON-1339 PS: If the fix is patchable and appliable on 0.14.0, I would like to apply = it locally. Regards, Adel ________________________________ From: Alan Conway Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2016 6:32:00 PM To: users@qpid.apache.org Subject: Re: [Proton-c] [0.14.0] [0.15.0] Event_loop injection is very slow= compared to timer schedule On Wed, 2016-11-02 at 17:28 +0000, Adel Boutros wrote: > Hello, > > > In Proton 0.12.2, we were able to inject events from other threads to > the messaging_handler thread by calling timer.schedule indefinitely > and queues storing messages to send. > > > With Proton 0.14.0, We have implemented > proton::thread_safe::event_loop() which should replace the above > timer.schedule. > > > We have noticed our unit tests are 1 000 times slower with the event > loop mechanism Yikes! Please open a JIRA with a test program, I will look at it right away. I am currently working on improvements to the underlying IO driver so this is well timed. Better performance metrics is also a hot topic right now. > Are you aware of such performance regression? How can we analyze it? Probably not a regression but just a foolish bit of code in the inject path, I imagine it will be easy to find and fix with such a large delta. I'll try to get it fixed for the next release. Cheers, Alan. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@qpid.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@qpid.apache.org --_000_VI1PR0901MB089397E004BA8A6C834BC938CDA30VI1PR0901MB0893_--