Re: [OT]: mmap (Was: Templating System (preview Embperl 2.0))
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Kenneth Lee wrote: > > > it would be good for the user to choose between mmap or normal i/o at > > compile time. i'll try HTML::Tree anyway in the meantime. > > It's not that simple. Using mmap(2) greatly affects how one > writes code: it's not a drop-in replacement for standard I/O. > An mmap'd file *becomes* memory in the time it takes the OS to > handle a page-fault. You then further get speed by accessing > the file *as* memory via ordinary pointers rather than function > calls and I/O buffers. Inside the HTML Tree code is a generic > C++ STL-style container class wrapped around mmap...quite nice > if I do say so myself. > > By definition, file I/O off disk can't be faster than mmap(2). This is the quote from "Philip and Alex..." that I was talking about earlier. I don't know if its relevant or not: >> My favorite AOLserver story starts in the seventh-floor lounge of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. I was asking Robert Thau, primary author of the Apache server program, why the Netscape 1.1 server was so slow. He said "Oh that's because those guys don't understand Unix. They're actually using the read system call to read files." Everyone in the room laughed except me. What? What's wrong with that? I asked. He replied, "Everyone knows you can't use read; you have to use memory-mapped I/O." I knew that the NaviSoft guys were about to release a new version so I thought I'd give the naifs in Santa Barbara the benefit of some hard-core MIT engineering knowledge. I told them the story and asked them what NaviServer, as it was then called, did. They replied "NaviServer uses memory-mapped file I/O on single-processor machines but automatically configures itself to use operating system read on multi-CPU machines so as to reduce shared memory contention." << -- Fastnet Software Ltd. High Performance Web Specialists Providing mod_perl, XML, Sybase and Oracle solutions Email for training and consultancy availability. http://sergeant.org | AxKit: http://axkit.org
Re: [OT]: mmap (Was: Templating System (preview Embperl 2.0))
> This is the quote from "Philip and Alex..." that I was talking about > earlier. I don't know if its relevant or not: > > They replied "NaviServer uses memory-mapped file I/O on single-processor > machines but automatically configures itself to use operating system read on > multi-CPU machines so as to reduce shared memory contention." mmap(2) is *supposed* to share memory when read-only which is what's beign done for HTML file reads, so I don't understand what "contention" there could possibly be. Additionally, any OS that doesn't get mmap right is severly broken and shouldn't be used. - Paul
Re: [OT]: mmap (Was: Templating System (preview Embperl 2.0))
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > > This is the quote from "Philip and Alex..." that I was talking about > > earlier. I don't know if its relevant or not: > > > > They replied "NaviServer uses memory-mapped file I/O on single-processor > > machines but automatically configures itself to use operating system read on > > multi-CPU machines so as to reduce shared memory contention." > > mmap(2) is *supposed* to share memory when read-only which is > what's beign done for HTML file reads, so I don't understand > what "contention" there could possibly be. > > Additionally, any OS that doesn't get mmap right is severly > broken and shouldn't be used. Well Philip does recommend HPUX ;-) -- Fastnet Software Ltd. High Performance Web Specialists Providing mod_perl, XML, Sybase and Oracle solutions Email for training and consultancy availability. http://sergeant.org | AxKit: http://axkit.org
Re: [OT]: mmap (Was: Templating System (preview Embperl 2.0))
Paul J. Lucas writes: > > This is the quote from "Philip and Alex..." that I was talking about > > earlier. I don't know if its relevant or not: > > > > They replied "NaviServer uses memory-mapped file I/O on single-processor > > machines but automatically configures itself to use operating system read on > > multi-CPU machines so as to reduce shared memory contention." > > mmap(2) is *supposed* to share memory when read-only which is > what's beign done for HTML file reads, so I don't understand > what "contention" there could possibly be. That's where some of the subtlety comes in. The first that springs to mind is that with multiple CPUs of an architecture with a virtually indexed cache, if the mmap maps the file at different virtual addresses (as it very well may without slow global communication between the reading processes) then the data will end up being duplicated in processor cache. That slows things down. Another point is that it can be harder for the kernel to notice when a file is being read linearly when all it sees is page faults through an address space. That means it may not do read-ahead on that file as well. Most decent Unices will probably try to keep track these days (certainly Linux does page-ahead and in fact page-around to try to predict when to read-ahead or drop-behind or whatever). On the other hand, if you have two concurrent processes doing the reading then you'll get page faults at, for example, byte 8k, 16k, 8k(second process starting), 24k, 16k and so on. Assuming the kernel only keeps track of the last fault position in the file, it won't recognise that it's being read linearly (twice :-) and may well not do the async read ahead and drop behind in page cache that it would do otherwise. Once again, you'll lose performance with mmap. --Malcolm -- Malcolm Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Unix Systems Programmer Oxford University Computing Services
Re: [OT]: mmap (Was: Templating System (preview Embperl 2.0))
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Malcolm Beattie wrote: > Assuming the kernel only keeps track of the last fault position in the file, > it won't recognise that it's being read linearly (twice :-) and may well not > do the async read ahead and drop behind in page cache that it would do > otherwise. Once again, you'll lose performance with mmap. And reading in the file twice into two separate I/O buffers is better? - Paul
Re: [OT]: mmap (Was: Templating System (preview Embperl 2.0))
Paul J. Lucas writes: > On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Malcolm Beattie wrote: > > > Assuming the kernel only keeps track of the last fault position in the file, > > it won't recognise that it's being read linearly (twice :-) and may well not > > do the async read ahead and drop behind in page cache that it would do > > otherwise. Once again, you'll lose performance with mmap. > > And reading in the file twice into two separate I/O buffers > is better? I've forgotten exactly what the original situation was so I'm not sure whether it's better or not. With mmap you also have the potential disadvantage that you're taking a page fault into the kernel for every single page (say 4k or 8k) whereas with read(), a single system call will fill up a much larger buffer with data. It's also possible that the kernel can play tricks to get you the data from a read better (on some architectures it could avoid copying through the cache or it may be able to get the data transferred from the source directly into your buffer without passing through the CPU or suchlike). Basically, mmap may well be an advantage from the ease or elegance-of-coding point of view and in some cases it may win out over read() for performance/scalability or whatever but it's not a foregone conclusion and there are kernel/architecture-specific difference which may swing the balance one way or the other. Now we're getting offtopic though. I really just wanted to make the points that saying "mmap is always better than read" is not true and that there are things going on behind the scenes. --Malcolm -- Malcolm Beattie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I am looking for a Linux (and Unix Systems Programmer maybe Apache/mod_perl) job/contract Oxford University Computing Services http://users.ox.ac.uk/~mbeattie/cv.html