性能测试：sem_t 与dispatch_semaphore_t 和 pthread_once_t 与dispatch_once_t
我想知道使用 pthread_once() 和 sem_wait() 等 POSIX 调用或dispatch_* 函数会更好/更快，所以我创建了一个小测试，然后对结果感到惊讶（问题和结果在最后）。
在测试代码中，我使用 mach_absolute_time() 来计时调用。我真的不在乎这与纳秒不完全匹配；我正在相互比较这些值，因此确切的时间单位并不重要，只有间隔之间的差异才重要。结果部分中的数字是可重复的且不是平均值；我可以对时间进行平均，但我并不是在寻找确切的数字。
test.m（简单的控制台应用程序；易于编译）：
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#import <dispatch/dispatch.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <mach/mach_time.h>
// *sigh* OSX does not have pthread_barrier (you can ignore the pthread_barrier
// code, the interesting stuff is lower)
typedef int pthread_barrierattr_t;
typedef struct
{
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
pthread_cond_t cond;
int count;
int tripCount;
} pthread_barrier_t;
int pthread_barrier_init(pthread_barrier_t *barrier, const pthread_barrierattr_t *attr, unsigned int count)
{
if(count == 0)
{
errno = EINVAL;
return -1;
}
if(pthread_mutex_init(&barrier->mutex, 0) < 0)
{
return -1;
}
if(pthread_cond_init(&barrier->cond, 0) < 0)
{
pthread_mutex_destroy(&barrier->mutex);
return -1;
}
barrier->tripCount = count;
barrier->count = 0;
return 0;
}
int pthread_barrier_destroy(pthread_barrier_t *barrier)
{
pthread_cond_destroy(&barrier->cond);
pthread_mutex_destroy(&barrier->mutex);
return 0;
}
int pthread_barrier_wait(pthread_barrier_t *barrier)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&barrier->mutex);
++(barrier->count);
if(barrier->count >= barrier->tripCount)
{
barrier->count = 0;
pthread_cond_broadcast(&barrier->cond);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&barrier->mutex);
return 1;
}
else
{
pthread_cond_wait(&barrier->cond, &(barrier->mutex));
pthread_mutex_unlock(&barrier->mutex);
return 0;
}
}
//
// ok you can start paying attention now...
//
void onceFunction(void)
{
}
@interface SemaphoreTester : NSObject
{
sem_t *sem1;
sem_t *sem2;
pthread_barrier_t *startBarrier;
pthread_barrier_t *finishBarrier;
}
@property (nonatomic, assign) sem_t *sem1;
@property (nonatomic, assign) sem_t *sem2;
@property (nonatomic, assign) pthread_barrier_t *startBarrier;
@property (nonatomic, assign) pthread_barrier_t *finishBarrier;
@end
@implementation SemaphoreTester
@synthesize sem1, sem2, startBarrier, finishBarrier;
- (void)thread1
{
pthread_barrier_wait(startBarrier);
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
sem_wait(sem1);
sem_post(sem2);
}
pthread_barrier_wait(finishBarrier);
}
- (void)thread2
{
pthread_barrier_wait(startBarrier);
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
sem_wait(sem2);
sem_post(sem1);
}
pthread_barrier_wait(finishBarrier);
}
@end
int main (int argc, const char * argv[])
{
NSAutoreleasePool * pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
int64_t start;
int64_t stop;
// semaphore non contention test
{
// grrr, OSX doesn't have sem_init
sem_t *sem1 = sem_open("sem1", O_CREAT, 0777, 0);
start = mach_absolute_time();
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
sem_post(sem1);
sem_wait(sem1);
}
stop = mach_absolute_time();
sem_close(sem1);
NSLog(@"0 Contention time = %d", stop - start);
}
// semaphore contention test
{
__block sem_t *sem1 = sem_open("sem1", O_CREAT, 0777, 0);
__block sem_t *sem2 = sem_open("sem2", O_CREAT, 0777, 0);
__block pthread_barrier_t startBarrier;
pthread_barrier_init(&startBarrier, NULL, 3);
__block pthread_barrier_t finishBarrier;
pthread_barrier_init(&finishBarrier, NULL, 3);
dispatch_queue_t queue = dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_LOW, 0);
dispatch_async(queue, ^{
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
sem_wait(sem1);
sem_post(sem2);
}
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
});
dispatch_async(queue, ^{
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
sem_wait(sem2);
sem_post(sem1);
}
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
});
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
// start timing, everyone hit this point
start = mach_absolute_time();
// kick it off
sem_post(sem2);
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
// stop timing, everyone hit the finish point
stop = mach_absolute_time();
sem_close(sem1);
sem_close(sem2);
NSLog(@"2 Threads always contenting time = %d", stop - start);
pthread_barrier_destroy(&startBarrier);
pthread_barrier_destroy(&finishBarrier);
}
// NSTask semaphore contention test
{
sem_t *sem1 = sem_open("sem1", O_CREAT, 0777, 0);
sem_t *sem2 = sem_open("sem2", O_CREAT, 0777, 0);
pthread_barrier_t startBarrier;
pthread_barrier_init(&startBarrier, NULL, 3);
pthread_barrier_t finishBarrier;
pthread_barrier_init(&finishBarrier, NULL, 3);
SemaphoreTester *tester = [[[SemaphoreTester alloc] init] autorelease];
tester.sem1 = sem1;
tester.sem2 = sem2;
tester.startBarrier = &startBarrier;
tester.finishBarrier = &finishBarrier;
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:@selector(thread1) toTarget:tester withObject:nil];
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:@selector(thread2) toTarget:tester withObject:nil];
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
// start timing, everyone hit this point
start = mach_absolute_time();
// kick it off
sem_post(sem2);
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
// stop timing, everyone hit the finish point
stop = mach_absolute_time();
sem_close(sem1);
sem_close(sem2);
NSLog(@"2 NSTasks always contenting time = %d", stop - start);
pthread_barrier_destroy(&startBarrier);
pthread_barrier_destroy(&finishBarrier);
}
// dispatch_semaphore non contention test
{
dispatch_semaphore_t sem1 = dispatch_semaphore_create(0);
start = mach_absolute_time();
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
dispatch_semaphore_signal(sem1);
dispatch_semaphore_wait(sem1, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER);
}
stop = mach_absolute_time();
NSLog(@"Dispatch 0 Contention time = %d", stop - start);
}
// dispatch_semaphore non contention test
{
__block dispatch_semaphore_t sem1 = dispatch_semaphore_create(0);
__block dispatch_semaphore_t sem2 = dispatch_semaphore_create(0);
__block pthread_barrier_t startBarrier;
pthread_barrier_init(&startBarrier, NULL, 3);
__block pthread_barrier_t finishBarrier;
pthread_barrier_init(&finishBarrier, NULL, 3);
dispatch_queue_t queue = dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_LOW, 0);
dispatch_async(queue, ^{
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
dispatch_semaphore_wait(sem1, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER);
dispatch_semaphore_signal(sem2);
}
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
});
dispatch_async(queue, ^{
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
dispatch_semaphore_wait(sem2, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER);
dispatch_semaphore_signal(sem1);
}
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
});
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
// start timing, everyone hit this point
start = mach_absolute_time();
// kick it off
dispatch_semaphore_signal(sem2);
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
// stop timing, everyone hit the finish point
stop = mach_absolute_time();
NSLog(@"Dispatch 2 Threads always contenting time = %d", stop - start);
pthread_barrier_destroy(&startBarrier);
pthread_barrier_destroy(&finishBarrier);
}
// pthread_once time
{
pthread_once_t once = PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT;
start = mach_absolute_time();
for(int i = 0; i <100000; i++)
{
pthread_once(&once, onceFunction);
}
stop = mach_absolute_time();
NSLog(@"pthread_once time = %d", stop - start);
}
// dispatch_once time
{
dispatch_once_t once = 0;
start = mach_absolute_time();
for(int i = 0; i <100000; i++)
{
dispatch_once(&once, ^{});
}
stop = mach_absolute_time();
NSLog(@"dispatch_once time = %d", stop - start);
}
[pool drain];
return 0;
}
在我的 iMac (Snow Leopard Server 10.6.4) 上：
Model Identifier: iMac7,1 Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz Number Of Processors: 1 Total Number Of Cores: 2 L2 Cache: 4 MB Memory: 4 GB Bus Speed: 800 MHz
我得到：
0 Contention time = 101410439 2 Threads always contenting time = 109748686 2 NSTasks always contenting time = 113225207 0 Contention named semaphore time = 166061832 2 Threads named semaphore contention time = 203913476 2 NSTasks named semaphore contention time = 204988744 Dispatch 0 Contention time = 3411439 Dispatch 2 Threads always contenting time = 708073977 pthread_once time = 2707770 dispatch_once time = 87433
在我的 MacbookPro (Snow Leopard 10.6.4) 上：
Model Identifier: MacBookPro6,2 Processor Name: Intel Core i5 Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz Number Of Processors: 1 Total Number Of Cores: 2 (though HT is enabled) L2 Cache (per core): 256 KB L3 Cache: 3 MB Memory: 8 GB Processor Interconnect Speed: 4.8 GT/s
我得到：
0 Contention time = 74172042 2 Threads always contenting time = 82975742 2 NSTasks always contenting time = 82996716 0 Contention named semaphore time = 106772641 2 Threads named semaphore contention time = 162761973 2 NSTasks named semaphore contention time = 162919844 Dispatch 0 Contention time = 1634941 Dispatch 2 Threads always contenting time = 759753865 pthread_once time = 1516787 dispatch_once time = 120778
在 iPhone 3GS 4.0.2 上得到：
0 Contention time = 5971929 2 Threads always contenting time = 11989710 2 NSTasks always contenting time = 11950564 0 Contention named semaphore time = 16721876 2 Threads named semaphore contention time = 35333045 2 NSTasks named semaphore contention time = 35296579 Dispatch 0 Contention time = 151909 Dispatch 2 Threads always contenting time = 46946548 pthread_once time = 193592 dispatch_once time = 25071
问题和陈述：
sem_wait()和sem_post()在没有争用的情况下速度很慢- 为什么会这样？
- OSX 不关心兼容的 API 吗？是否有一些遗留代码会导致速度变慢？
- 为什么这些数字与dispatch_semaphore函数不同？
sem_wait()和sem_post()在争用时和非争用时一样慢（存在差异，但我认为在争用时这将是一个巨大的差异）我期望使用命名信号量时，像dispatch_semaphore代码中的那样的数字sem_wait()和sem_post()会更慢。- 为什么？这是因为信号量必须在进程之间同步吗？这样做的时候也许会有更多的包袱。
dispatch_semaphore_wait()和dispatch_semaphore_signal()在没有争用的情况下速度非常快（这并不奇怪，因为苹果经常宣传这一点）。- 发生争用时，
dispatch_semaphore_wait()和dispatch_semaphore_signal()比sem_wait()和sem_post()慢 3 倍- 为什么这么慢？这对我来说没有意义。我本以为这与争用的 sem_t 相当。
dispatch_once()比pthread_once()快，大约 10 倍，为什么？我从标头中唯一可以看出的是，与pthread_once()相比，dispatch_once()没有函数调用负担。
动机： 我收到了两套工具来完成信号量或一次调用的工作（实际上我同时发现了其他信号量变体，但我会忽略它们，除非作为更好的选择提出）。我只是想知道什么是最适合这项工作的工具（如果您可以选择用飞利浦或平头螺钉拧紧螺钉，如果我不必拧紧螺钉和平头，我会选择飞利浦，如果我必须拧紧螺丝）。 看来，如果我开始使用 libdispatch 编写实用程序，我可能无法将它们移植到尚未运行 libdispatch 的其他操作系统......但它的使用非常诱人；）
就目前情况而言： 当我不必担心可移植性和 POSIX 调用时，我将使用 libdispatch。
谢谢！
I wanted to know what would be better/faster to use POSIX calls like pthread_once() and sem_wait() or the dispatch_* functions, so I created a little test and am surprised at the results (questions and results are at the end).
In the test code I am using mach_absolute_time() to time the calls. I really don’t care that this is not exactly matching up with nano-seconds; I am comparing the values with each other so the exact time units don't matter, only the differences between the interval do. The numbers in the results section are repeatable and not averaged; I could have averaged the times but I am not looking for exact numbers.
test.m (simple console application; easy to compile):
#import <Foundation/Foundation.h>
#import <dispatch/dispatch.h>
#include <semaphore.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <mach/mach_time.h>
// *sigh* OSX does not have pthread_barrier (you can ignore the pthread_barrier
// code, the interesting stuff is lower)
typedef int pthread_barrierattr_t;
typedef struct
{
pthread_mutex_t mutex;
pthread_cond_t cond;
int count;
int tripCount;
} pthread_barrier_t;
int pthread_barrier_init(pthread_barrier_t *barrier, const pthread_barrierattr_t *attr, unsigned int count)
{
if(count == 0)
{
errno = EINVAL;
return -1;
}
if(pthread_mutex_init(&barrier->mutex, 0) < 0)
{
return -1;
}
if(pthread_cond_init(&barrier->cond, 0) < 0)
{
pthread_mutex_destroy(&barrier->mutex);
return -1;
}
barrier->tripCount = count;
barrier->count = 0;
return 0;
}
int pthread_barrier_destroy(pthread_barrier_t *barrier)
{
pthread_cond_destroy(&barrier->cond);
pthread_mutex_destroy(&barrier->mutex);
return 0;
}
int pthread_barrier_wait(pthread_barrier_t *barrier)
{
pthread_mutex_lock(&barrier->mutex);
++(barrier->count);
if(barrier->count >= barrier->tripCount)
{
barrier->count = 0;
pthread_cond_broadcast(&barrier->cond);
pthread_mutex_unlock(&barrier->mutex);
return 1;
}
else
{
pthread_cond_wait(&barrier->cond, &(barrier->mutex));
pthread_mutex_unlock(&barrier->mutex);
return 0;
}
}
//
// ok you can start paying attention now...
//
void onceFunction(void)
{
}
@interface SemaphoreTester : NSObject
{
sem_t *sem1;
sem_t *sem2;
pthread_barrier_t *startBarrier;
pthread_barrier_t *finishBarrier;
}
@property (nonatomic, assign) sem_t *sem1;
@property (nonatomic, assign) sem_t *sem2;
@property (nonatomic, assign) pthread_barrier_t *startBarrier;
@property (nonatomic, assign) pthread_barrier_t *finishBarrier;
@end
@implementation SemaphoreTester
@synthesize sem1, sem2, startBarrier, finishBarrier;
- (void)thread1
{
pthread_barrier_wait(startBarrier);
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
sem_wait(sem1);
sem_post(sem2);
}
pthread_barrier_wait(finishBarrier);
}
- (void)thread2
{
pthread_barrier_wait(startBarrier);
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
sem_wait(sem2);
sem_post(sem1);
}
pthread_barrier_wait(finishBarrier);
}
@end
int main (int argc, const char * argv[])
{
NSAutoreleasePool * pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init];
int64_t start;
int64_t stop;
// semaphore non contention test
{
// grrr, OSX doesn't have sem_init
sem_t *sem1 = sem_open("sem1", O_CREAT, 0777, 0);
start = mach_absolute_time();
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
sem_post(sem1);
sem_wait(sem1);
}
stop = mach_absolute_time();
sem_close(sem1);
NSLog(@"0 Contention time = %d", stop - start);
}
// semaphore contention test
{
__block sem_t *sem1 = sem_open("sem1", O_CREAT, 0777, 0);
__block sem_t *sem2 = sem_open("sem2", O_CREAT, 0777, 0);
__block pthread_barrier_t startBarrier;
pthread_barrier_init(&startBarrier, NULL, 3);
__block pthread_barrier_t finishBarrier;
pthread_barrier_init(&finishBarrier, NULL, 3);
dispatch_queue_t queue = dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_LOW, 0);
dispatch_async(queue, ^{
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
sem_wait(sem1);
sem_post(sem2);
}
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
});
dispatch_async(queue, ^{
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
sem_wait(sem2);
sem_post(sem1);
}
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
});
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
// start timing, everyone hit this point
start = mach_absolute_time();
// kick it off
sem_post(sem2);
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
// stop timing, everyone hit the finish point
stop = mach_absolute_time();
sem_close(sem1);
sem_close(sem2);
NSLog(@"2 Threads always contenting time = %d", stop - start);
pthread_barrier_destroy(&startBarrier);
pthread_barrier_destroy(&finishBarrier);
}
// NSTask semaphore contention test
{
sem_t *sem1 = sem_open("sem1", O_CREAT, 0777, 0);
sem_t *sem2 = sem_open("sem2", O_CREAT, 0777, 0);
pthread_barrier_t startBarrier;
pthread_barrier_init(&startBarrier, NULL, 3);
pthread_barrier_t finishBarrier;
pthread_barrier_init(&finishBarrier, NULL, 3);
SemaphoreTester *tester = [[[SemaphoreTester alloc] init] autorelease];
tester.sem1 = sem1;
tester.sem2 = sem2;
tester.startBarrier = &startBarrier;
tester.finishBarrier = &finishBarrier;
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:@selector(thread1) toTarget:tester withObject:nil];
[NSThread detachNewThreadSelector:@selector(thread2) toTarget:tester withObject:nil];
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
// start timing, everyone hit this point
start = mach_absolute_time();
// kick it off
sem_post(sem2);
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
// stop timing, everyone hit the finish point
stop = mach_absolute_time();
sem_close(sem1);
sem_close(sem2);
NSLog(@"2 NSTasks always contenting time = %d", stop - start);
pthread_barrier_destroy(&startBarrier);
pthread_barrier_destroy(&finishBarrier);
}
// dispatch_semaphore non contention test
{
dispatch_semaphore_t sem1 = dispatch_semaphore_create(0);
start = mach_absolute_time();
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
dispatch_semaphore_signal(sem1);
dispatch_semaphore_wait(sem1, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER);
}
stop = mach_absolute_time();
NSLog(@"Dispatch 0 Contention time = %d", stop - start);
}
// dispatch_semaphore non contention test
{
__block dispatch_semaphore_t sem1 = dispatch_semaphore_create(0);
__block dispatch_semaphore_t sem2 = dispatch_semaphore_create(0);
__block pthread_barrier_t startBarrier;
pthread_barrier_init(&startBarrier, NULL, 3);
__block pthread_barrier_t finishBarrier;
pthread_barrier_init(&finishBarrier, NULL, 3);
dispatch_queue_t queue = dispatch_get_global_queue(DISPATCH_QUEUE_PRIORITY_LOW, 0);
dispatch_async(queue, ^{
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
dispatch_semaphore_wait(sem1, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER);
dispatch_semaphore_signal(sem2);
}
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
});
dispatch_async(queue, ^{
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
{
dispatch_semaphore_wait(sem2, DISPATCH_TIME_FOREVER);
dispatch_semaphore_signal(sem1);
}
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
});
pthread_barrier_wait(&startBarrier);
// start timing, everyone hit this point
start = mach_absolute_time();
// kick it off
dispatch_semaphore_signal(sem2);
pthread_barrier_wait(&finishBarrier);
// stop timing, everyone hit the finish point
stop = mach_absolute_time();
NSLog(@"Dispatch 2 Threads always contenting time = %d", stop - start);
pthread_barrier_destroy(&startBarrier);
pthread_barrier_destroy(&finishBarrier);
}
// pthread_once time
{
pthread_once_t once = PTHREAD_ONCE_INIT;
start = mach_absolute_time();
for(int i = 0; i <100000; i++)
{
pthread_once(&once, onceFunction);
}
stop = mach_absolute_time();
NSLog(@"pthread_once time = %d", stop - start);
}
// dispatch_once time
{
dispatch_once_t once = 0;
start = mach_absolute_time();
for(int i = 0; i <100000; i++)
{
dispatch_once(&once, ^{});
}
stop = mach_absolute_time();
NSLog(@"dispatch_once time = %d", stop - start);
}
[pool drain];
return 0;
}
On My iMac (Snow Leopard Server 10.6.4):
Model Identifier: iMac7,1 Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz Number Of Processors: 1 Total Number Of Cores: 2 L2 Cache: 4 MB Memory: 4 GB Bus Speed: 800 MHz
I get:
0 Contention time = 101410439 2 Threads always contenting time = 109748686 2 NSTasks always contenting time = 113225207 0 Contention named semaphore time = 166061832 2 Threads named semaphore contention time = 203913476 2 NSTasks named semaphore contention time = 204988744 Dispatch 0 Contention time = 3411439 Dispatch 2 Threads always contenting time = 708073977 pthread_once time = 2707770 dispatch_once time = 87433
On my MacbookPro (Snow Leopard 10.6.4):
Model Identifier: MacBookPro6,2 Processor Name: Intel Core i5 Processor Speed: 2.4 GHz Number Of Processors: 1 Total Number Of Cores: 2 (though HT is enabled) L2 Cache (per core): 256 KB L3 Cache: 3 MB Memory: 8 GB Processor Interconnect Speed: 4.8 GT/s
I got:
0 Contention time = 74172042 2 Threads always contenting time = 82975742 2 NSTasks always contenting time = 82996716 0 Contention named semaphore time = 106772641 2 Threads named semaphore contention time = 162761973 2 NSTasks named semaphore contention time = 162919844 Dispatch 0 Contention time = 1634941 Dispatch 2 Threads always contenting time = 759753865 pthread_once time = 1516787 dispatch_once time = 120778
on an iPhone 3GS 4.0.2 I got:
0 Contention time = 5971929 2 Threads always contenting time = 11989710 2 NSTasks always contenting time = 11950564 0 Contention named semaphore time = 16721876 2 Threads named semaphore contention time = 35333045 2 NSTasks named semaphore contention time = 35296579 Dispatch 0 Contention time = 151909 Dispatch 2 Threads always contenting time = 46946548 pthread_once time = 193592 dispatch_once time = 25071
Questions and statements:
sem_wait()andsem_post()are slow when not under contention- why is this the case?
- does OSX not care about compatible APIs? is there some legacy code that forces this to be slow?
- Why aren't these numbers the same as the dispatch_semaphore functions?
sem_wait()andsem_post()are just as slow when under contention as when they are not (there is a difference but I thought that it would be a huge difference between under contention and not; I expected numbers like what was in the dispatch_semaphore code)sem_wait()andsem_post()are slower when using named semaphores.- Why? is this because the semaphore has to be synced between processes? maybe there is more baggage when doing that.
dispatch_semaphore_wait()anddispatch_semaphore_signal()are crazy fast when not under contention (no surprise here since apple is touting this a lot).dispatch_semaphore_wait()anddispatch_semaphore_signal()are 3x slower thansem_wait()andsem_post()when under contention- Why is this so slow? this does not make sense to me. I would have expected this to be on par with the sem_t under contention.
dispatch_once()is faster thanpthread_once(), around 10x, why? The only thing I can tell from the headers is that there is no function call burden withdispatch_once()than withpthread_once().
Motivation:
I am presented with 2 sets of tools to get the job done for semaphores or once calls (I actually found other semaphore variants in the meantime, but I will ignore those unless brought up as a better option). I just want to know what is the best tool for the job (If you have the option for screwing in a screw with a philips or flathead, I would choose philips if I don't have to torque the screw and flathead if I have to torque the screw).
It seems that if I start writing utilities with libdispatch I might not be able to port them to other operating systems that do not have libdispatch working yet... but it is so enticing to use ;)
As it stands:
I will be using libdispatch when I don't have to worry about portability and POSIX calls when I do.
Thanks!
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（1）
sem_wait() 和 sem_post() 是可在进程之间使用的重量级同步工具。它们总是涉及到内核的往返，并且可能总是需要重新调度您的线程。它们通常不是进程内同步的正确选择。我不知道为什么命名变体会比匿名变体慢...
Mac OS X 实际上在 Posix 兼容性方面相当不错...但是 Posix 规范有很多可选功能，而 Mac 没有商场。你的帖子实际上是我第一次听说过 pthread_barriers，所以我猜它们要么是相对较新的，要么不是那么常见。 （在过去十年左右的时间里，我没有太关注 pthread 的演变。）
调度内容在强制极端争用下崩溃的原因可能是因为其行为类似于自旋锁。在乐观的假设下，您的调度工作线程很可能浪费了很大一部分量子，即争用的资源现在在任何周期都可用......与 Shark 相处的时间会告诉您肯定的结果。然而，最重要的一点应该是，“优化”争用期间的颠簸是对程序员时间的不良投资。相反，花时间优化代码，首先避免严重的争用。
如果您确实有一个资源是流程中不可避免的瓶颈，那么在它周围放置信号量是非常次优的。将其放在自己的串行调度队列中，并在该队列上执行尽可能多的dispatch_async块。
最后，dispatch_once() 比 pthread_once() 更快，因为它的规范和实现在当前处理器上速度很快。也许苹果可以加速 pthread_once() 实现，因为我怀疑参考实现使用 pthread 同步原语，但是......好吧......他们已经提供了所有 libdispatch 的优点。 :-)
sem_wait() and sem_post() are heavy weight synchronization facilities that can be used between processes. They always involve round trips to the kernel, and probably always require your thread to be rescheduled. They are generally not the right choice for in-process synchronization. I'm not sure why the named variants would be slower than the anonymous ones...
Mac OS X is actually pretty good about Posix compatibility... But the Posix specifications have a lot of optional functions, and the Mac doesn't have them all. Your post is actually the first I've ever heard of pthread_barriers, so I'm guessing they're either relatively recent, or not all that common. (I haven't paid much attention to pthreads evolution for the past ten years or so.)
The reason the dispatch stuff falls apart under forced extreme contention is probably because under the covers the behavior is similar to spin locks. Your dispatch worker threads are very likely wasting a good chunk of their quanta under the optimistic assumption that the resource under contention is going to be available any cycle now... A bit of time with Shark would tell you for sure. The take-home point, though, should be that "optimizing" the thrashing during contention is a poor investment of programmer time. Instead spend the time optimizing the code to avoid heavy contention in the first place.
If you really have a resource that is an un-avoidable bottleneck within your process, putting a semaphore around it is massively sub-optimal. Put it on its own serial dispatch queue, and as much as possible dispatch_async blocks to be executed on that queue.
Finally, dispatch_once() is faster than pthread_once() because it's spec'd and implemented to be fast on current processors. Probably Apple could speed up the pthread_once() implementation, as I suspect the reference implementation uses pthread synchronization primitives, but... well... they've provided all of the libdispatch goodness instead. :-)