| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
| |
events only with its queue, with boosts performance into brigt green levels
|
| |
|
|
| |
the time instead of reusing its own one, it was somewhat hard to manage its state over time and could cause bugs. It works okay, but it occasionally hangs, it appears to be an empty queue, have to gradually put certain things back in, although in the current mode of operation, it should never have empty queues from the pool to the user
|
| |
|
|
| |
thing as the task deletes itself too late - its time for a paradigm change, the task should be deleted with its RPoolChannel or explicitly by the user. The test needs to adapt, and shouldn't assume anything unless the RPoolChannel is gone
|
| |
|
|
| |
task class
|
| |
|
|
| |
the pool which runs it ) - its not yet stable, but should be solvable.
|
| |
|
|
| |
the wrong spot. The channel is nothing more than an adapter allowing to read multiple items from a thread-safe queue, the queue itself though must be 'closable' for writing, or needs something like a writable flag.
|
| |
|
|
| |
at least with my totally overwritten version of the condition - the previous one was somewhat more stable it seems. Nonetheless, this is the fastest version so far
|
| |
|
|
| |
didn't seem necessary - its a failure, something is wrong - performance not much better than the original one, its depending on the condition performance actually, which I don't get faster
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
its performance considerably.
Channels now use the AsyncQueue, boosting their throughput to about 5k items / s - this is something one can work with, considering the runtime of each item should be large enough to keep the threads busy. This could be a basis, further testing needed
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
unnecessary tasks to be scheduled as we keep track of how many items will be produced for the task at hand. This introduces additional locking, but performns well in multithreaded mode. Performance of the master queue is still a huge issue, its currently the limiting factor, as bypassing the master queue in serial moode gives 15x performance, wich is what I would need
|
| |
|
|
| |
still inconsistencies that need to be fixed, but it already improved, especially the 4-thread performance which now is as fast as the dual-threaded performance
|
| |
|
|
| |
for up to 2 threads, but 4 are killing the queue
|
| |
|
|
| |
havok - lets call this a safe-state
|
| |
|
|
| |
least in tests, and with multiple threads. There is still an sync bug in regard to closed channels to be fixed, as the Task.set_done handling is incorrecft
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
changing tasks
Now processing more items to test performance, in dual-threaded mode as well, and its rather bad, have to figure out the reason for this, probably gil, but queues could help
|
| |
|
|
| |
task.min_count, to fix theoretical option for a deadlock in serial mode, and unnecessary blocking in async mode
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
multiple connected pools
Reduced waiting time in tests to make them complete faster
|
| |
|
|
| |
single task for now, but next up are dependent tasks
|
| |
|
|
| |
related to our channel closed flag, which is the only way not to block forever on read(0) channels which were closed by a thread 'in the meanwhile'
|
| |
|
|
| |
chunking test. Next up, actual async processing
|
| |
|
|
| |
including own tests, their design improved to prepare them for some specifics that would be needed for multiprocessing support
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
is handled by the task system
graph: implemented it including test according to the pools requirements
pool: implemented set_pool_size
|
| |
|
|
| |
while going. Tests will be written soon for verification, its still quite theoretical
|
|
|
going on. The default implementation uses threads, which ends up being nothing more than async, as they are all locked down by internal and the global interpreter lock
|
