I wonder how much it helps to just optimize the GC a little. How
much does the performance gap close when you use DMD 2.058 beta
instead of 2.057? This upcoming release has several new garbage
collector optimizations. If the GC is the bottleneck, then it's
not surprising that anything that relies heavily on it is slow
because D's GC is still fairly naive.
On Thursday, 9 February 2012 at 15:44:59 UTC, Sean Kelly wrote:
So a queue per message type? How would ordering be preserved?
Also, how would this work for interprocess messaging? An
array-based queue is an option however (though it would mean
memmoves on receive), as are free-lists for nodes, etc. I
guess the easiest thing there would be a lock-free shared slist
for the node free-list, though I couldn't weigh the chance of
cache misses from using old memory blocks vs. just expecting
the allocator to be fast.
On Feb 9, 2012, at 6:10 AM, Gor Gyolchanyan
<gor.f.gyolchan...@gmail.com> wrote:
Generally, D's message passing is implemented in quite
easy-to-use
way, but far from being fast.
I dislike the Variant structure, because it adds a huge
overhead. I'd
rather have a templated message passing system with type-safe
message
queue, so no Variant is necessary.
In specific cases Messages can be polymorphic objects. This
will be
way faster, then Variant.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Alex Dovhal <alex
dov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Sorry, my mistake. It's strange to have different 'n', but
you measure speed
as 1000*n/time, so it's doesn't matter if n is 10 times
bigger.
--
Bye,
Gor Gyolchanyan.
