[Freeswitch-dev] On high CPU usage and NONBLOCK-ed sockets

[Anthony Minessale]

Can you produce some example code that we can test on other architectures?
What exactly were you doing in mod_skinny? if you copied
mod_event_socket it may be true your blocking approach is better but
mod_event_socket has some high performance reasons to not block.

We use the centos kernel and trying to make it work better on debian
with a newer kernel could disrupt our stable user base.

consider making a mod_debug or mod_testperf we can mess with on many boxes.



On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 3:52 PM, Mathieu Parent <math.parent at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Anthony Minessale
> <anthony.minessale at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What do you mean by high cpu exactly?
> when going blocking-mode, the user CPU gets lower and the kernel CPU is similar.
>
>>  what are you using to measure it?
> top, vmstat
>
> without mod_skinny
> mathieu at netthieu:~/apps/freeswitch/freeswitch.git$ vmstat 5 5
> procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
>  r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in   cs us sy id wa
>  7  0     48 175552 161664 787636    0    0     8    10  184  361  6  8 86  1
>  1  0     48 171948 161672 791372    0    0     0     5 4141 9191 14 12 74  0
>  0  0     48 171700 161684 791496    0    0     0    11 4125 9081 13  9 78  0
>  0  0     48 175048 161688 787860    0    0     0     3 4344 9177  7 10 84  0
>  6  0     48 175048 161692 787860    0    0     0     1 4225 9035  9 11 80  0
>
> with mod_skinny NONBLOCKED
> mathieu at netthieu:~/apps/freeswitch/freeswitch.git$ vmstat 5 5
> procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
>  r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in   cs us sy id wa
>  1  0     48 172668 162104 789052    0    0     8    10  190  374  6  8 86  1
>  1  0     48 173528 162108 788652    0    0     0     2 4792 10346 15 13 72  0
>  1  0     48 173528 162124 788664    0    0     0    17 4678 10326  9 12 78  0
>  0  0     48 173528 162124 788628    0    0     0     1 4788 10343 10 14 77  0
>  9  0     48 166956 162136 792764    0    0     0    10 4592 10535 16 13 71  0
>
> with mod_skinny BLOCKED
> mathieu at netthieu:~/apps/freeswitch/freeswitch.git$ vmstat 5 5
> procs -----------memory---------- ---swap-- -----io---- -system-- ----cpu----
>  r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in   cs us sy id wa
>  0  0     48 175288 161648 787832    0    0     8    10  182  358  6  8 86  1
>  1  0     48 175280 161648 787824    0    0     0     0 4236 9054  7  9 83  0
>  7  0     48 175404 161648 787804    0    0     0     3 4173 8927  7 10 83  0
>  0  0     48 175280 161652 787576    0    0     0     5 4288 9182  9 10 81  0
>  6  0     48 175404 161656 787580    0    0     0     4 4209 9001  8 10 82  0
>
> So it seems that both %user and %system are lower. I have not done
> complete tests but mod_skinny is more responsive in BLOCKING-mode
>
>> what OS are you on?
> Linux netthieu 2.6.32-5-686 #1 SMP Thu Aug 12 13:38:27 UTC 2010 i686 GNU/Linux
>
> this is Debian testing using FS built from recent git using debian packaging.
>
>
>> in my findings not more efficient, not at all reliable.
> Googling some, I found (from
> http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-async/)
>
> "Synchronous non-blocking I/O: A less efficient variant of synchronous
> blocking". This is what we are doing?
>
> The good solutions IMO are:
> - Synchronous blocking I/O: simple and efficient
> - Asynchronous blocking I/O: not so good. use of "select" is not recommended
> - Asynchronous non-blocking I/O (AIO) which is a completely different
> API (portable?) which should fit well with FS's event model but with a
> lot of work
>
> Maybe we can make it configurable at build-time (as it is in
> mod_skinny) to allow performance testing? Perhaps the results will be
> very different from one platform to another.
>
> Mathieu
>
> _______________________________________________
> FreeSWITCH-dev mailing list
> FreeSWITCH-dev at lists.freeswitch.org
> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-dev
> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-dev
> http://www.freeswitch.org
>



-- 
Anthony Minessale II

FreeSWITCH http://www.freeswitch.org/
ClueCon http://www.cluecon.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/FreeSWITCH_wire

AIM: anthm
MSN:anthony_minessale at hotmail.com
GTALK/JABBER/PAYPAL:anthony.minessale at gmail.com
IRC: irc.freenode.net #freeswitch

FreeSWITCH Developer Conference
sip:888 at conference.freeswitch.org
googletalk:conf+888 at conference.freeswitch.org
pstn:+19193869900