vibe.d benchmarks
Etienne Cimon via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Thu Jan 7 20:02:39 PST 2016
On Wednesday, 6 January 2016 at 08:24:10 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 14:15:18 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 13:09:55 UTC, Etienne Cimon
>> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 5 January 2016 at 10:11:36 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> The Rust mio library doesn't seem to be doing any black
>>> magic. I wonder how libasync could be optimized to match it.
>>
>> Have you used perf(or similar) to attempt to find bottlenecks
>> yet?
>
> Extensively. I optimised my D code as much as I know how to.
> And that's the same code that gets driven by vibe.d,
> boost::asio and mio.
>
> Nothing stands out anymore in perf. The only main difference I
> can see is that the vibe.d version has far more cache misses. I
> used perf to try and figure out where those came from and
> included them in the email I sent to Soenke.
>
>> Perf is a bit hard to understand if you've never used it
>> before, but it's also very powerful.
>
> Oh, I know. :)
>
> Atila
It's possible that those cache misses will be irrelevant when the
requests actually do something, is it not? When a lot of
different requests are competing for cache lines, I'd assume it's
shuffling it enough to change these readings
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list