[#80974] [Ruby trunk Feature#13517] [PATCH] reduce rb_mutex_t size from 160 to 80 bytes on 64-bit — ko1@...
Issue #13517 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
4 messages
2017/05/02
[#81024] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13517] [PATCH] reduce rb_mutex_t size from 160 to 80 bytes on 64-bit
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2017/05/07
sorry for late response.
[#80996] [Ruby trunk Feature#13544] Allow loading an ISeqs sequence directly from a C extension without requiring buffer is in an RVALUE — sam.saffron@...
Issue #13544 has been reported by sam.saffron (Sam Saffron).
3 messages
2017/05/04
[#81016] [Ruby trunk Bug#13526] Segmentation fault at 0x0055c2e58e8920 ruby 2.3.1p112 (2016-04-26 revision 54768) [x86_64-linux] — s.wanabe@...
Issue #13526 has been updated by wanabe (_ wanabe).
3 messages
2017/05/07
[#81048] Re: [ruby-cvs:65788] normal:r58614 (trunk): rb_execution_context_t: move stack, stack_size and cfp from rb_thread_t — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
It causes compile error on raspi 3.
3 messages
2017/05/09
[#81201] Re: [ruby-cvs:65935] normal:r58761 (trunk): test/test_extilibs.rb: do not check the existence of fiddle — "U.NAKAMURA" <usa@...>
Hi, Eric
4 messages
2017/05/16
[#81202] Re: [ruby-cvs:65935] normal:r58761 (trunk): test/test_extilibs.rb: do not check the existence of fiddle
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/05/16
"U.NAKAMURA" <usa@garbagecollect.jp> wrote:
[#81427] Fwd: [ruby-changes:46809] normal:r58924 (trunk): test for IO.copy_stream CPU usage (r58534) — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Hi,
6 messages
2017/05/28
[#81428] Re: Fwd: [ruby-changes:46809] normal:r58924 (trunk): test for IO.copy_stream CPU usage (r58534)
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/05/28
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
[ruby-core:81050] Re: [ruby-cvs:65407] normal:r58236 (trunk): thread.c: comments on M:N threading [ci skip]
From:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Date:
2017-05-09 05:54:37 UTC
List:
ruby-core #81050
On 2017/05/09 14:12, Eric Wong wrote: > SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote: >> On 2017/05/09 12:38, Eric Wong wrote: >>> 100 epoll FDs is a waste of FDs; especially since it is common >>> to have a 1024 FD limit. I already feel bad about timer thread >>> taking up two FDs; but maybe epoll/kevent can cut reduce that. >> 1024 soft limit and 4096 hard limit is an issue. However, if we employ >> >>> I can easily imagine Ruby doing 100 native threads in one process >>> (8 cores, 10-20 rotational disks, 2 SSD), but 20000-30000 fibers. >> 20000-30000 fibers, it is also problem if they have corresponding fds. >> So that I think people increase this limit upto 65K, don't? > Yes, for people that run 20000-30000 fibers maybe it is not a > problem to have 100 epoll FD... > > However, for existing apps like puma, webrick and net/http-based > scripts: they can spawn dozens/hundreds of threads and only use > one socket per thread. It is a waste to use epoll/kqueue to > watch a few number of FD per thread (ppoll is more appropriate > for watching a single FD). I see. 1000 fds -> 500 fds (with per-thread epoll) is bad. > On the contrary; software like nginx and cmogstored watch > thousands of FDs with a single epoll|kqueue FD. > >>> In the kernel, every "struct eventpoll" + "struct file" in >>> Linux is at least 400 bytes of unswappable kernel memory. >> 400B * 100 = 40KB. Is it problem? I have no knowledge to evaluate this >> size (10 pages seems not so small, I guess). > I'd rather not use that much memory and save whereever possible. On the other hand, aggressive I/O request can conflict by multi-thread app. But current ruby threads don't run in parallel, so that it seems no problem (hopefully). It seems can cause problem on parallel running Guilds (but not available now). -- // SASADA Koichi at atdot dot net Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>