[Boost-users] 回复：Re: the performance of boost::lock_free is slow in centos 6 and 7

Thanks for the response! What I want to know are: 1. when I should use the boost::lock_free? 2. What is the main usage of boost::lock_free? Not for better performance? 3. what is the best practice for boost::lock_free? 4. why the better the machine is, the worse the performance for boost::lock_free? In my test 3, by using 32core machine, I test threads from 1 to 32. In all of the test cases, the boost::lock_free is much slower than mutex, why? Best regards, dennis ----- 原始邮件 ----- 发件人：james 收件人：boost-users@lists.boost.org 主题：Re: [Boost-users] the performance of boost::lock_free is slow in centos 6 and 7 日期：2016年07月08日 21点21分 I suspect the main issue with your test is the effects of false sharing being magnified when the number of cores is >= the number of threads. I'd also suggest using the mm_pause intrinsic when busy spinning if your CPU supports it. (It's a real shame there's no official spinlock class in C++) Also, use something like a countdown latch to make sure your threads all start the actual work at the same time. On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Michael wrote: On July 8, 2016 1:39:13 AM EDT, gao1738@sina.com wrote:

Hi all,

I try the boost::lockfree::queue and find some performance issue：

I use the following test programs:

lock_free_test.cc

#include

#include

#include <iostream>

#include<cstdio>

#include

boost::atomic_int producer_count(0);

boost::atomic_int consumer_count(0);

boost::lockfree::queue<int> queue(128);

const int iterations = 1000000;

const int producer_thread_count = 4;

const int consumer_thread_count = 4;

void producer(void)

{

for (int i = 0; i != iterations; ++i) {

int value = ++producer_count;

while (!queue.push(value))

;

}

}

boost::atomic<bool> done (false);

void consumer(void)

{

int value;

while (!done) {

while (queue.pop(value))

++consumer_count;

}

while (queue.pop(value))

++consumer_count;

}

int main(int argc, char* argv[])

{

using namespace std;

cout << "boost::lockfree::queue is ";

if (!queue.is_lock_free())

cout << "not ";

cout << "lockfree" << endl;

boost::thread_group producer_threads, consumer_threads;//线程组

for (int i = 0; i != producer_thread_count; ++i)

producer_threads.create_thread(producer);

for (int i = 0; i != consumer_thread_count; ++i)

consumer_threads.create_thread(consumer);

producer_threads.join_all();

done = true;

consumer_threads.join_all();

cout << "produced " << producer_count << " objects." << endl;

cout << "consumed " << consumer_count << " objects." << endl;

}

locktest.cc

#include

#include

#include <iostream>

#include<cstdio>

#include <queue>

#include

using namespace std;

boost::mutex producer_count_mu;

boost::mutex consumer_count_mu;

int producer_count = 0;

int consumer_count = 0;

std::queue<int> message_queue;

boost::mutex queue_mutex;

const int iterations = 1000000;

const int producer_thread_count = 4;

const int consumer_thread_count = 4;

void producer(void)

{

for (int i = 0; i != iterations; ++i) {

queue_mutex.lock();

int value = ++producer_count;

message_queue.push(value);

queue_mutex.unlock();

}

}

I haven't used lockfree per se but my understanding is that it solves what its name says. My guess is that most of the time is spent contending for the mutex. Incidentally, why not use one of the proper lock classes? You are already using boost, so this is also there. That'll save you having to lock and unlock, at least. I haven't explored lockfree that much, I could be wrong, but I thought the whole point of running lockfree was to avoid expensive locks, but not absolving you of being aware of exhausted conditions when your queue was empty. Also, doing a test like this what are you really asserting? Lock free; not expense free. There are no free lunches. Less so ever before. Anyhow, HTH Regards, Michael Powell

bool done (false);

void consumer(void)

{

int value;

while (!done) {

queue_mutex.lock();

while (!message_queue.empty()) {

message_queue.pop();

++consumer_count;

}

queue_mutex.unlock();

}

queue_mutex.lock();

while (!message_queue.empty()) {

message_queue.pop();

++consumer_count;

}

queue_mutex.unlock();

}

int main(int argc, char* argv[])

{

using namespace std;

cout << "boost::lockfree::queue is ";

// if (!queue.is_lock_free())

cout << "not ";

cout << "lockfree" << endl;

boost::thread_group producer_threads, consumer_threads;//线程组

for (int i = 0; i != producer_thread_count; ++i)

producer_threads.create_thread(producer);

for (int i = 0; i != consumer_thread_count; ++i)

consumer_threads.create_thread(consumer);

producer_threads.join_all();

done = true;

consumer_threads.join_all();

cout << "produced " << producer_count << " objects." << endl;

cout << "consumed " << consumer_count << " objects." << endl;

}

The compile command is:

g++ -I/usr/local/inlcude -L/usr/local/lib lock_free_test.cc

-lboost_thread -lboost_system -o lock_free_test

g++ -I/usr/local/inlcude -L/usr/local/lib lock_test.cc -lboost_thread

-lboost_system -o lock_test

1. I first test in on my work computer, which use ubuntu 14.04 with

2core(i5), with

boost version: 1.54

gcc version: 4.8.4

g++ version: 4.8.4

The test result is that:

time ./lock_test

boost::lockfree::queue is not lockfree

produced 4000000 objects.

consumed 4000000 objects.

real 0m3.844s

user 0m1.800s

sys 0m12.308s

time ./lock_free_test

boost::lockfree::queue is lockfree

produced 4000000 objects.

consumed 4000000 objects.

real 0m1.745s

user 0m6.886s

sys 0m0.000s

We can see that the lock free solution has better performance, about

50%.

2. then I test it in a PC server with centos 6.4 , and 8 core (CPU

Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2650 0 @ 2.00GHz )

boost version: 1.54

gcc version: 4.4.7

g++ version:4.4.7

The test result is that:

time ./lock_test

boost::lockfree::queue is not lockfree

produced 4000000 objects.

consumed 4000000 objects.

real 0m3.900s

user 0m2.593s

sys 0m27.282s

time ./lock_free_test

boost::lockfree::queue is lockfree

produced 4000000 objects.

consumed 4000000 objects.

real 0m5.470s

user 0m43.105s

sys 0m0.000s

Non lock free solution is better than lock free solution.

3. I test it in a better PC server with centos 7.1 and 32 core CPU

(Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7-4820 v2 @ 2.00GHz)

boost version: 1.53

gcc version: 4.8.3

g++ version: 4.8.3

time ./lock_test

boost::lockfree::queue is not lockfree

produced 4000000 objects.

consumed 4000000 objects.

real 0m3.023s

user 0m1.929s

sys 0m20.706s

time ./lock_free_test

boost::lockfree::queue is lockfree

produced 4000000 objects.

consumed 4000000 objects.

real 0m9.804s

user 1m14.900s

sys 0m0.100s

The lock free solution will be 3 times lower than the non-lock free

solution!

My question is that:

1. why lock free solution will get better performance in ubuntu but

much slower in centos 6 and 7?

Is it the issue of kernal or the gcc version or the boost version?

The more cpu in the machine the worse performance for lock free

solution?

2. In which case, we should use the boost lock free solution to get

better performance?

Best Regards!

dennis

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________

Boost-users mailing list

Boost-users@lists.boost.org

http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users

-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users