[PATCH] D27159: [ThreadPool] Simplify the interface
Davide Italiano via llvm-commits
llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Mon Nov 28 22:40:05 PST 2016
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2016, at 6:04 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:18 AM, Mehdi AMINI via Phabricator
> <reviews at reviews.llvm.org> wrote:
>> mehdi_amini added a comment.
>> What is the motivation? This is removing a feature. Even though it is not
>> used at that time, it is tested and could find its use in the future.
> shared_future has a large performance overhead compared to just handing off
> a function pointer to another thread to run.
> That’s a good point, but “large overhead” is quite subjective. Note also
> that the LLVM ThreadPool has a global lock, so it is not intended for a lot
> of very small tasks (<100ms).
> My first prototype was way more complex, and was wrapping around libdispatch
> when available or using C++11 construct otherwise. Much better for a lot of
> small tasks!
> However the complexity was not worth it for my use case at the time: ThinLTO
> tasks range between 100ms and a few seconds, so a few ms overhead don’t
> To focus on the submission part, I queued an empty task multiple times in a
> threapool with 0 threads, never deleted/synchronized, and measuring just the
> queuing time.
> For 1000000 queuing, it went from 180ms to 500ms, which account on average
> to a queuing time for one task going from 180ns to 500ns, so the overhead of
> shared_future is 320ns per task.
> As matter of comparison, to evaluate the overhead of the rest of the thread
> pool infrastructure, I reran the same experiment but this time with one
> thread in the pool processing these empty tasks. It took over 7s (so over 20
> times the std::future overhead). Also, adding threads increases the
> contention and the performance drops (8.5s with 2 threads, and 11s with
Independently from the overhead, which can be subjective, this library
returns a value that nobody uses. Even worse, there's no immediate
plan for using it. This is a good metric of its usefulness for the
time being. If you plan to use it anytime soon, fine, but otherwise,
I'm not excited of keeping dead code in tree "just in case" we need
More information about the llvm-commits