Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:42:34 +0200 (EET) | From | "Ilpo Järvinen" <> | Subject | Re: [tbench regression fixes]: digging out smelly deadmen. |
| |
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@helsinki.fi> > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:40:16 +0200 (EET) > > > Let me remind that it is just a single process, so no ping-pong & other > > lock related cache effects should play any significant role here, no? (I'm > > no expert though :-)). > > Not locks or ping-pongs perhaps, I guess. So it just sends and > receives over a socket, implementing both ends of the communication > in the same process?
Effectively its this:
signal(SIGALRM, alarm_handler); ... while (flag) { /* flagged by alarm_handler */ loops = 90 open & setup sockets & connection while (--loops > 0) { write(wr_fd, buf, size); read(rd_fd, buf, size); } close sockets }
where size comes from this array (advancing in the inner loop one by one):
static int sizes[] = { 1, 3, 5, 7, 16, 32, 64, 512, 1024, 2048, /* misc. sizes */ 1, 3, 5, 7, 16, 32, 64, 512, 1024, 2048, 32, 32, 32, 32, 32, 32, /* x windows mostly... */ 512, 512, 512, 512, 512, /* DBMS's mostly */ };
buf sits in the stack and is not initialized (besides reading into it).
...I think the rest is just bogus complexity :-) ...maybe I should just take that from above as basis for Reduced AIM9 benchmark, it nearly compiles already.
> If hash chain conflicts do happen for those 2 sockets, just traversing > the chain 2 entries deep could show up.
No idea on this one.
-- i. | |