> From: d@email-addr-hidden
> To: linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:10:26 -0500
> Subject: [LAD] Pipes vs. Message Queues
>
> I got curious, so I bashed out a quick program to benchmark pipes vs
> POSIX message queues. It just pumps a bunch of messages through the
> pipe/queue in a tight loop. The results were interesting:
Very interesting.
You might be running into some basic scheduler weirdness here though
and not something inherently wrong with the POSIX queues. I ran your
code here a few times in some different configurations. The results with 1M
messages had wild variance with SCHED_FIFO, sometimes 2s, 4s, 6s, etc.
Not reliable - although without rescheduling they did seem more consistent.
These below are with 10M to give longer run times:
a. no SCHED_FIFO, 10M cycles
[nicky@email-addr-hidden] /tmp [65] cc ipc.c -lrt
[nicky@email-addr-hidden] /tmp [66] ./a.out 4096 10000000
Sending a 4096 byte message 10000000 times.
Pipe recv time: 23.220948
Pipe send time: 23.220820
Queue recv time: 13.949289
Queue send time: 13.949226
b. SCHED_FIFO, again 10M cycles.
[nicky@email-addr-hidden] /tmp [69] cc ipc.c -lrt -DSET_RT_SCHED=1
[nicky@email-addr-hidden] /tmp [70] ./a.out 4096 10000000
Sending a 4096 byte message 10000000 times.
Pipe send time: 34.514288
Pipe recv time: 34.514404
Queue send time: 19.004525
Queue recv time: 19.004427
This was on a dual core laptop, 2.2GHz, no speed stepping, was also
watching the top whilst running this.
Without FIFO the system CPU spreads across both cores, they both run up
towards 100% load for both IPC methods.
With SCHED_FIFO/pipe the load does not distribute - I get 94% system load
on a single CPU whilst running through the loop.
The POSIX code did not show this effect.
Odd results so had a look at vmstat rather than top, this gives some indication:
No rescheduling:
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
1 0 0 6506924 312036 595456 0 0 0 196 750 1569 5 94 0 0
1 0 0 6489188 312036 613344 0 0 0 0 961 25508 8 88 3 0
1 0 0 6488724 312036 613536 0 0 0 0 991 21070 6 92 2 0
1 0 0 6488812 312036 613552 0 0 0 0 697 1446 5 94 1 0
SCHED_FIFO pipe():
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
2 0 0 6516912 311372 586924 0 0 0 108 569 435180 5 46 44 4
2 0 0 6516272 311372 586972 0 0 0 0 556 436042 3 47 50 0
1 0 0 6516608 311372 586972 0 0 0 0 548 436482 6 46 48 0
1 0 0 6516928 311372 586924 0 0 0 0 563 435930 2 51 48 0
Ouch. Almost 100 times the number of context switches. Is the whole kernel
bound up in a single thread doing process context switches?
SCHED_FIFO message queues - generally lower, far more variance:
procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
1 0 0 6510328 316116 587048 0 0 0 0 427 142445 2 83 15 0
1 1 0 6509736 316120 587044 0 0 0 44 440 795 3 97 1 0
1 0 0 6509900 316132 587052 0 0 0 64 439 281037 9 69 22 0
1 0 0 6509436 316132 587048 0 0 0 0 437 796 3 95 2 0
1 0 0 6509868 316160 587020 0 0 0 164 452 151290 5 81 15 0
Vanilla kernel Linux fidelispc 2.6.32-35-generic #78-Ubuntu SMP Tue
Oct 11 16:11:24 UTC 2011 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Also tested with unbalanced priorities in the sender and receiver, and with only
prioritising one of them, pretty much the same as 90/90.
Not sure if that helps any. I have another system with a single core, might try it
out there later since my results were very different.
Regards, nick.
"we have to make sure the old choice [Windows] doesn't disappear”.
Jim Wong, president of IT products, Acer
> From: d@email-addr-hidden
> To: linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
> Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:10:26 -0500
> Subject: [LAD] Pipes vs. Message Queues
>
> I got curious, so I bashed out a quick program to benchmark pipes vs
> POSIX message queues. It just pumps a bunch of messages through the
> pipe/queue in a tight loop. The results were interesting:
>
> $ ./ipc 4096 1000000
> Sending a 4096 byte message 1000000 times.
> Pipe recv time: 6.881104
> Pipe send time: 6.880998
> Queue send time: 1.938512
> Queue recv time: 1.938581
>
> Whoah. Which made me wonder what happens with realtime priority
> (SCHED_FIFO priority 90):
>
> $ ./ipc 4096 1000000
> Sending a 4096 byte message 1000000 times.
> Pipe send time: 5.195232
> Pipe recv time: 5.195475
> Queue send time: 5.224862
> Queue recv time: 5.224987
>
> Pipes get a bit faster, and POSIX message queues get dramatically
> slower. Interesting.
>
> I am opening the queues as blocking here, and both sender and receiver
> are at the same priority, and aggressively pumping the queue as fast as
> they can, so there is a lot of competition and this is not an especially
> good model of any reality we care about, but it's interesting
> nonetheless.
>
> The first result really has me thinking how much Jack would benefit from
> using message queues instead of pipes and sockets. It looks like
> there's definitely potential here... I might try to write a more
> scientific benchmark that better emulates the case Jack would care about
> and measures wakeup latency, unless somebody beats me to it. That test
> could have the shm + wakeup pattern Jack actually uses and benchmark it
> vs. actually firing buffer payload over message queues...
>
> But I should be doing more pragmatic things, so here's this for now :)
>
> Program is here: http://drobilla.net/files/ipc.c
>
> Cheers,
>
> -dr
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-dev mailing list
> Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Fri Nov 25 16:15:01 2011
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 25 2011 - 16:15:02 EET