On 10/06/2016 02:03 PM, Thomas Rodgers wrote: > > What about 96 bytes? same penalty? > > > If you are going to bump the size to > 64 bytes (x86 cache line size), > it likely should be rounded up to to 128 bytes, so as to eliminate any > potential for false sharing on architectures with 64 byte cache lines. > > Having said that, I've been playing with an experimental C++ > implementation of ZMTP using much larger fixed message struct sizes of > ~512 bytes. It's nothing more than a toy implementation at this point > and I don't have any real perf numbers, but my reasoning for the > larger message size is that ZMTP has explicit optimization for small > messages of < 256 bytes. A size > 256 bytes accommodates all small > ZMTP messages without an extra allocation and indirection and the > reference counting overhead of the large message type (all potentially > much more expensive operations than the cost of simply being larger > than a cache line), along with message metadata, and likely a decent > fraction of "large" ZMTP messages.
Looking forward to seeing the benchmarks on that idea!
--
Rudd-O
http://rudd-o.com/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
