Hi!
Actually I have no use case for 500 buffers, that was just a test
increasing the number of buffers to see if there was a pattern worth
finding, the real use case was reading from STDIN into a few of them (2, 4,
6, ..., 12) to then do concurrent CPU intensive work, such as compression
and/or encryption.
Actually, brainstorming with a colleague found what seems to be the
culprit, if the size of the buffer multiplied by the number of them exceed
the L2 cache of the processor the throughput would start degrading up to a
certain point from which would not degrade anymore, I guess that make some
sense because those pages would be read faster from there.
I've been experimenting with different settings to better understand the
challenges involved, and managed to improve things a bit but pinning
process to cores, and other pipe optimisations etc.
Cheers.
On Thursday 9 March 2023 at 14:05:53 UTC Wojciech Kaczmarek wrote:
>
> Hey!
>
> May I ask, what would be the practical usage of 500x 1MB buffers? What
> kind of problem are you solving?
>
> Best,
> -W
> niedziela, 5 marca 2023 o 22:13:57 UTC+1 Kursk napisał(a):
>
>> Oh, interesting enough this performance degradation shows only in some
>> Linux boxes (heavily optimised) from a LAB... I guess then this behaviour
>> might be related to the specific Linux OS settings that those boxes have.
>>
>> On Sunday 5 March 2023 at 20:36:08 UTC Kursk wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I've been recently experimenting with system pipes performance using Go,
>>> trying to measure how fast I could read from STDIN to a buffer, then do
>>> something with it.
>>>
>>> During that experiment I noticed a significant throughput degradation
>>> when reading into the same buffer vs different (pre-allocated) buffers.
>>>
>>> To make things more interesting, this performance degradation seems to
>>> happen on my Linux system only, when done in a Mac laptop throughput is
>>> consistent regardless of the count of buffers I am writing to which is what
>>> I was initially expecting.
>>>
>>> To remove throughput variance from cache misses, I've pinned both
>>> processes to the same virtual core.
>>>
>>> My question is why is this happening? and, is there a way to avoid it?
>>>
>>> Below code snipped and command lines
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>>
>>> $ taskset 0x1 cat 10GiB | taskset 0x1 ./stdin-to-buffer -buffer-count=
>>> *1*
>>> Start time: 2023-03-05T12:26:21-08:00
>>> Total bytes read: 10737418240
>>> Chunks: 10240
>>> *Throughput: 2903 MiB/s*
>>> Total time: 3.527284627s
>>> Finish time: 2023-03-05T12:26:25-08:00
>>>
>>> $ taskset 0x1 cat 10GiB | taskset 0x1 ./stdin-to-buffer -buffer-count=
>>> *25*
>>> Start time: 2023-03-05T12:26:29-08:00
>>> Total bytes read: 10737418240
>>> Chunks: 10240
>>> *Throughput: 2531 MiB/s*
>>> Total time: 4.045169972s
>>> Finish time: 2023-03-05T12:26:34-08:00
>>>
>>> $ taskset 0x1 cat 10GiB | taskset 0x1 ./stdin-to-buffer -buffer-count=
>>> *50*
>>> Start time: 2023-03-05T12:26:39-08:00
>>> Total bytes read: 10737418240
>>> Chunks: 10240
>>> *Throughput: 2215 MiB/s*
>>> Total time: 4.623220632s
>>> Finish time: 2023-03-05T12:26:43-08:00
>>>
>>> $ taskset 0x1 cat 10GiB | taskset 0x1 ./stdin-to-buffer -buffer-count=
>>> *150*
>>> Start time: 2023-03-05T12:26:49-08:00
>>> Total bytes read: 10737418240
>>> Chunks: 10240
>>> *Throughput: 1916 MiB/s*
>>> Total time: 5.344739086s
>>> Finish time: 2023-03-05T12:26:54-08:00
>>>
>>> $ taskset 0x1 cat 10GiB | taskset 0x1 ./stdin-to-buffer -buffer-count=
>>> *250*
>>> Start time: 2023-03-05T12:26:59-08:00
>>> Total bytes read: 10737418240
>>> Chunks: 10240
>>> *Throughput: 1732 MiB/s*
>>> Total time: 5.910793462s
>>> Finish time: 2023-03-05T12:27:05-08:00
>>>
>>> $ taskset 0x1 cat 10GiB | taskset 0x1 ./stdin-to-buffer -buffer-count=
>>> *500*
>>> Start time: 2023-03-05T12:27:13-08:00
>>> Total bytes read: 10737418240
>>> Chunks: 10240
>>> *Throughput: 1757 MiB/s*
>>> Total time: 5.827294797s
>>> Finish time: 2023-03-05T12:27:19-08:00
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>> Code for stdin-to-buffer.go follows.
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>> package main
>>>
>>> import (
>>> "bytes"
>>> "flag"
>>> "fmt"
>>> "io"
>>> "log"
>>> "math"
>>> "os"
>>> "time"
>>> )
>>>
>>> var (
>>> bufCount = flag.Int("buffer-count", 8, "The number of buffers")
>>> bufSize = flag.Int("buffer-size-bytes", 1048576 /*1MiB*/, "The
>>> buffer size in bytes")
>>> )
>>>
>>> func main() {
>>> flag.Parse()
>>>
>>> var nBytes, nChunks int
>>>
>>> bufPool := make([][]byte, *bufCount)
>>> for i := 0; i < *bufCount; i++ {
>>> bufPool[i] = make([]byte, *bufSize)
>>> }
>>>
>>> var startTime = time.Now()
>>> var loopIteration = -1
>>>
>>> loop:
>>> for {
>>> loopIteration++
>>> buf := bufPool[loopIteration%*bufCount]
>>> n, err := io.ReadFull(os.Stdin, buf)
>>>
>>> if n > 0 {
>>> nChunks++
>>> nBytes += n
>>> }
>>>
>>> switch err {
>>> case nil:
>>> continue
>>> case io.EOF, io.ErrUnexpectedEOF:
>>> break loop
>>> }
>>> log.Fatal(err)
>>> }
>>>
>>> finishTime := time.Now()
>>> totalTime := finishTime.Sub(startTime)
>>> fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "Start time: %v\n", startTime.Format(time
>>> .RFC3339))
>>> fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "Total bytes read: %v\n", nBytes)
>>> fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "Chunks: %v\n", nChunks)
>>> fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "Throughput: %v MiB/s\n", math.Round(
>>> float64(nBytes)/math.Pow(1024, 2)/totalTime.Seconds()))
>>> fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "Total time: %v\n", totalTime)
>>> fmt.Fprintf(os.Stderr, "Finish time: %v\n", finishTime.Format(
>>> time.RFC3339))
>>> }
>>>
>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/407ecc82-04f6-4c95-b8b5-73b7f9c443d3n%40googlegroups.com.
