Message passing between threads: Java 4 times faster than D
dsimcha at yahoo.com
Thu Feb 9 08:22:36 PST 2012
I wonder how much it helps to just optimize the GC a little. How
much does the performance gap close when you use DMD 2.058 beta
instead of 2.057? This upcoming release has several new garbage
collector optimizations. If the GC is the bottleneck, then it's
not surprising that anything that relies heavily on it is slow
because D's GC is still fairly naive.
On Thursday, 9 February 2012 at 15:44:59 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
> So a queue per message type? How would ordering be preserved?
> Also, how would this work for interprocess messaging? An
> array-based queue is an option however (though it would mean
> memmoves on receive), as are free-lists for nodes, etc. I
> guess the easiest thing there would be a lock-free shared slist
> for the node free-list, though I couldn't weigh the chance of
> cache misses from using old memory blocks vs. just expecting
> the allocator to be fast.
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 6:10 AM, Gor Gyolchanyan
> <gor.f.gyolchanyan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Generally, D's message passing is implemented in quite
>> way, but far from being fast.
>> I dislike the Variant structure, because it adds a huge
>> overhead. I'd
>> rather have a templated message passing system with type-safe
>> queue, so no Variant is necessary.
>> In specific cases Messages can be polymorphic objects. This
>> will be
>> way faster, then Variant.
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Alex Dovhal <alex
>> dovhal at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Sorry, my mistake. It's strange to have different 'n', but
>>> you measure speed
>>> as 1000*n/time, so it's doesn't matter if n is 10 times
>> Gor Gyolchanyan.
More information about the Digitalmars-d