upstream/haproxy
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/haproxy/haproxy.git synced 2026-04-23 23:28:47 -04:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 4

MINOR: ring: don't take the readers lock if there are no readers

Browse source 
There's no point looking for freshly attached readers if there are none,
taking this lock requires an atomic write to a shared area, something we
clearly want to avoid.

A general test with 213-byte messages on different thread counts shows
how the performance degrades across CCX and how this patch improves the
situation:
                   Before          After
    3C6T/1CCX:    6.39 Mmsg/s     6.35 Mmsg/s
   6C12T/2CCX:    2.90 Mmsg/s     3.16 Mmsg/s
  12C24T/4CCX:    2.14 Mmsg/s     2.33 Mmsg/s
  24C48T/8CCX:    1.75 Mmsg/s     1.92 Mmsg/s

This tends to confirm that the queues will really be needed and that
they'll have to be per-ccx hence per thread-group. They will amortize
the number of updates on head & tail (one per multiple messages).
This commit is contained in:
Willy Tarreau 2024-02-28 12:07:51 +01:00
parent 41d3ea521b
commit 04f1e3f3d9
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

2
src/ring.c
View file

@ -339,7 +339,7 @@ ssize_t ring_write(struct ring *ring, size_t maxlen, const struct ist pfx[], siz
HA_ATOMIC_STORE(lock_ptr, readers);
/* notify potential readers */
if (sent) {
if (sent && HA_ATOMIC_LOAD(&ring->readers_count)) {
HA_RWLOCK_RDLOCK(RING_LOCK, &ring->lock);
list_for_each_entry(appctx, &ring->waiters, wait_entry)
appctx_wakeup(appctx);