Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Ruby > Spin buffers

Reply
Thread Tools

Spin buffers

 
 
John Carter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2007
Hmm. Just being reading the Dr. Dobbs.

I certainly have hit the bottleneck talked about in this article...
http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/199902669
when using the 'thread.rb' Queue class.

I hacked around it by creating a Queue of Arrays, but that probably
creates more garbage than I should.

This "Spin Buffer" trick looks Good...
http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/199902669?pgno=2

Anyone have a ruby Spin Buffer implementation lying around?

John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
New Zealand


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robert Klemme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2007
On 16.07.2007 04:20, John Carter wrote:
> Hmm. Just being reading the Dr. Dobbs.
>
> I certainly have hit the bottleneck talked about in this article...
> http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/199902669
> when using the 'thread.rb' Queue class.


What exactly makes you believe that? Can you show some code and / or
figures that back this theory?

> I hacked around it by creating a Queue of Arrays, but that probably
> creates more garbage than I should.


Difficult to say without seeing the code. Generally I'd say that Queue
is pretty efficient already since it's implemented in C AFAIR.

> This "Spin Buffer" trick looks Good...
> http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/199902669?pgno=2
>
> Anyone have a ruby Spin Buffer implementation lying around?


I'd check with the RAA.

Kind regards

robert
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
ara.t.howard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-16-2007

On Jul 15, 2007, at 8:20 PM, John Carter wrote:

> Anyone have a ruby Spin Buffer implementation lying around?


no, but i'd be inclined to try writing one on top of guy's mmap ext -
the interface is that of string so the example should map (no pun
intended) rather well.

cheers.

a @ http://drawohara.com/
--
we can deny everything, except that we have the possibility of being
better. simply reflect on that.
h.h. the 14th dalai lama




 
Reply With Quote
 
MenTaLguY
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2007
--=-ZlOe4R5VzxuVmabsp2AU
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:30 +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
> What exactly makes you believe that? Can you show some code and / or=20
> figures that back this theory?


Seconded. Measure first, then optimize.

> > I hacked around it by creating a Queue of Arrays, but that probably
> > creates more garbage than I should.


That probably performs slower than Queue.

> Difficult to say without seeing the code. Generally I'd say that Queue=20
> is pretty efficient already since it's implemented in C AFAIR.


Depends on the version of Ruby. It certainly is if you're using
fastthread. If he's not using fastthread, I'd recommend giving it a
try.

> > This "Spin Buffer" trick looks Good...
> > http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/199902669?pgno=3D2
> >=20
> > Anyone have a ruby Spin Buffer implementation lying around?


"Spin Buffers" are _snake oil_; they get their "speed" at the expense of
correctness -- the implementation given in the DDJ article is not
threadsafe. If it were rewritten to be threadsafe, it would actually be
slower than some simpler alternatives.

-mental

--=-ZlOe4R5VzxuVmabsp2AU
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBGnWVbSuZBmZzm14ERAuaXAKCDvGoK7xn9g6HtUKZvIf dK21GENwCeN+FG
4b+yQIZLYbr/uaNmjYfsQgI=
=1Ih5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-ZlOe4R5VzxuVmabsp2AU--

 
Reply With Quote
 
MenTaLguY
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2007
--=-k54+bVLBP/xUgjH/SihR
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, 2007-07-16 at 14:46 +0900, ara.t.howard wrote:
> no, but i'd be inclined to try writing one on top of guy's mmap ext - =20
> the interface is that of string so the example should map (no pun =20
> intended) rather well.


What does mmap have to do with communication between Ruby threads?

(and again, I'd like to emphasize that "spin buffers" are snake oil)

-mental

--=-k54+bVLBP/xUgjH/SihR
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBGnWXWSuZBmZzm14ERAmblAKCuZDndGPOvewqbzwkVVF CGCBgKjACghyD7
88B11PHKYrCfnBlOVtAnfUQ=
=6FZc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-k54+bVLBP/xUgjH/SihR--

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Carter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2007
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, MenTaLguY wrote:

And yes... I did, as always, measure before I optimized and my Queue
of Array trick did speed things measurably.

> Depends on the version of Ruby. It certainly is if you're using
> fastthread. If he's not using fastthread, I'd recommend giving it a
> try.


I'm not using fastthread since it caused code that had been working
fine for several years to curl up and die. So I disabled it.

I'll admit I never got to the bottom of why it did.... (and no, it
wasn't the code that used my queue of arrays trick)

>>> This "Spin Buffer" trick looks Good...
>>> http://www.ddj.com/dept/architect/199902669?pgno=2
>>>
>>> Anyone have a ruby Spin Buffer implementation lying around?


> "Spin Buffers" are _snake oil_; they get their "speed" at the expense of
> correctness -- the implementation given in the DDJ article is not
> threadsafe.


Well that was a bit of a problem with the article... it didn't
actually include the code so I can't say one way or the other on
that. Any pointers as to what the incorrect bit is?



John Carter Phone : (64)(3) 358 6639
Tait Electronics Fax : (64)(3) 359 4632
PO Box 1645 Christchurch Email : (E-Mail Removed)
New Zealand


 
Reply With Quote
 
MenTaLguY
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2007
--=-TqNbfialWcCH6IhB/du4
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 10:32 +0900, John Carter wrote:
> And yes... I did, as always, measure before I optimized and my Queue
> of Array trick did speed things measurably.


Hmm, did you just mean sending batches of objects as arrays, rather than
sending individual objects? That would make sense and it's a reasonable
optimization, provided you're careful about not touching the array on
the sending side once it's been added to the queue. I'd just finished
reading the DDJ article and was imagining something more elaborate at
first...

> > Depends on the version of Ruby. It certainly is if you're using
> > fastthread. If he's not using fastthread, I'd recommend giving it a
> > try.

>=20
> I'm not using fastthread since it caused code that had been working
> fine for several years to curl up and die. So I disabled it.


It might be worth looking into why -- if it doesn't work with
fastthread, it's unlikely to work with future versions of Ruby
(including 1.8.6 or later) or alternate Ruby implementations like JRuby.

Absent fastthread bugs (which do crop up occasionally, though rarely at
this point), there are two main sources of problems:

1. Code that tries to manipulate the internal implementation of
thread.rb objects (Mutex, ConditionVariable, Queue, etc); not always a
bug, but it isn't portable or future-proof.

2. Code which has existing concurrency bugs which show up more clearly
when the scheduling behavior changes.

> > "Spin Buffers" are _snake oil_; they get their "speed" at the expense o=

f
> > correctness -- the implementation given in the DDJ article is not
> > threadsafe.

>=20
> Well that was a bit of a problem with the article... it didn't
> actually include the code so I can't say one way or the other on
> that. Any pointers as to what the incorrect bit is?


The code is included in the source archive on the DDJ ftp site as
spin.txt (and spin.zip, which has his test harness):

ftp://66.77.27.238/sourcecode/ddj/2007/0707.zip

It's not just a one-line bug, but a systemic problem: the author assumes
that the only reason he needs synchronization is to prevent two threads
from modifying the same data at the same time (hence the elaborate dance
with the buffers); in reality, however, it's also important to protect
the code from compiler (and CPU) optimizations which will alter its
behavior in undesirable ways if it is used in a multi-threaded context
(e.g. it becomes possible for the reader to see the writer's addition of
the object but see the object in an uninitalized state!). He's
basically trying to get a performance "free lunch" by not using
synchronization.

Concurrency bugs are notoriously hard to find through testing, and it
doesn't help that the author only ever tested on hardware which is
extremely forgiving about concurrency (a single hyperthreaded x86 CPU).
It also didn't help that all his test did was count how many objects
were read from the queue.

-mental

--=-TqNbfialWcCH6IhB/du4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBGnXr3SuZBmZzm14ERAjYqAJwN3zTGPA2yKWSP8TCb6H skZb5RpQCdEQM5
kYMM/UW66P6mSX8LOS95zYk=
=eQEc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-TqNbfialWcCH6IhB/du4--

 
Reply With Quote
 
MenTaLguY
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2007
--=-WvSoUeP4smAk1CDL+QJ7
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 10:32 +0900, John Carter wrote:
> I'm not using fastthread since it caused code that had been working
> fine for several years to curl up and die. So I disabled it.


At any rate, I think your best option is something like fastthread's
Queue. It shouldn't be too hard to change the code to work with it, and
it's possible that you've uncovered a bug in that "working" code which
really needs to be fixed.

-mental


--=-WvSoUeP4smAk1CDL+QJ7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBGnX5CSuZBmZzm14ERAiYRAKC1B9QVHdLhdidOFMIn5x jTq2m3ygCfVxzf
IB1e5H827NKQtAwCp4owQzI=
=nbRP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-WvSoUeP4smAk1CDL+QJ7--

 
Reply With Quote
 
MenTaLguY
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-18-2007
--=-0qx18Y/MDA8SbomlbQdJ
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 11:29 +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:
> in reality, however, it's also important to protect
> the code from compiler (and CPU) optimizations which will alter its
> behavior in undesirable ways if it is used in a multi-threaded context
> (e.g. it becomes possible for the reader to see the writer's addition of
> the object but see the object in an uninitalized state!).


It is worth noting that these are not issues if you're only writing for
Ruby 1.8, which has neither an optimizing compiler nor native threads
(where instruction ordering and cache effects become a consideration).

So, does that mean a Spin Buffer implementation would theoretically be
okay for Ruby 1.8? Maybe as far as those issues go. But note that the
author himself identifies a number of issues with spin buffers when the
readers and writers get out of sync, including poor performance and the
reader getting "stuck" on a non-empty buffer if it hits a buffer
boundary when no writers are writing. Those are actually inherent to
the data structure's design.

-mental

--=-0qx18Y/MDA8SbomlbQdJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBGnYD+SuZBmZzm14ERAsxWAJ92RZfVYlFqKaGEbeU327 YaEs2wWgCgmLMn
U17NBl6rgZNLvBnqdn5BdAQ=
=aXPf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-0qx18Y/MDA8SbomlbQdJ--

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CPU fan does not spin Nitro Computer Support 4 07-11-2004 06:46 PM
Spin Bruce Computer Support 2 02-24-2004 10:50 PM
Laptop CPU fan does not spin while in XP Jack B. Pollack Computer Support 11 01-07-2004 04:14 PM
A new spin on electronics? Max Quordlepleen Computer Support 1 08-22-2003 07:38 PM
A New Spin on Copyright Free Images info HTML 1 07-21-2003 02:38 AM



Advertisments