Hi tim: Where is the test code for the ringbuffer?? -----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Tim Blechmann Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 11:37 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Cc: Chris M. Thomasson Subject: Re: [boost] [lockfree::fifo] Review
Well, IMO, it should perform better because the producer and consumer are not thrashing each other wrt the head and tail indexes.
the performance difference is almost the same. current implementation: Performance counter stats for 'workspace/boost_lockfree/bin.v2/libs/lockfree/test/ringbuffer_test.test/gcc-4.4.1/release/threading-multi/ringbuffer_test': 104843.459702 task-clock-msecs # 1.919 CPUs 86507 context-switches # 0.001 M/sec 100 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec 2123 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec 292926371337 cycles # 2793.940 M/sec 139203486138 instructions # 0.475 IPC 3829638652 cache-references # 36.527 M/sec 19789409 cache-misses # 0.189 M/sec 31762728722 branches # 302.954 M/sec 1669597777 branch-misses # 15.925 M/sec 54.643822949 seconds time elapsed your proposed implementation (with cache line padding): Performance counter stats for 'workspace/boost_lockfree/bin.v2/libs/lockfree/test/ringbuffer_test2.test/gcc-4.4.1/release/threading-multi/ringbuffer_test2': 104827.826694 task-clock-msecs # 1.922 CPUs 84196 context-switches # 0.001 M/sec 196 CPU-migrations # 0.000 M/sec 2135 page-faults # 0.000 M/sec 292892624370 cycles # 2794.035 M/sec 149885017189 instructions # 0.512 IPC 3301119985 cache-references # 31.491 M/sec 20729054 cache-misses # 0.198 M/sec 33378354235 branches # 318.411 M/sec 1685405757 branch-misses # 16.078 M/sec 54.527086724 seconds time elapsed cheers, tim -- tim@klingt.org http://tim.klingt.org Desperation is the raw material of drastic change. Only those who can leave behind everything they have ever believed in can hope to escape. William S. Burroughs