vibe.d benchmarks

[Etienne Cimon via Digitalmars-d]

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