Performance of pooling virtual threads vs. semaphores

[robert engels]

But looking at the numbers some more they don’t make sense. The total times go way down, moving from 10_000 tasks to 100_000 tasks. Then they go up again (expected) moving from 100_000 to 1_000_000

I don’t think the wall time should ever go down when the number of tasks go up, so something doesn’t seem right.

> On May 29, 2024, at 6:03 PM, Attila Kelemen <attila.kelemen85 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Yeah, just realized that and sent my email pretty much literally a second after your email :)
> 
> Anyway, while yes in theory 1M threads are contending for the semaphore, but I don't think that should be a problem, because the contention is rather theoretical, since those "contending" VTs are just sitting in a queue, and after each release only one of them should be released. Also, I think Liam's comparison is fair, because none of the other two methods push back, so pushing back only in the VT version would be very unfair.
> 
> robert engels <rengels at ix.netcom.com <mailto:rengels at ix.netcom.com>> ezt írta (időpont: 2024. máj. 30., Cs, 0:58):
> I remember that too, but in this case I don’t think it is the cause.
> 
> In the bounded/pooled thread scenario - you are only scheduling 600 threads (either platform or virtual).
> 
> In “scenario #2” all 1M virtual threads are created and are contending on a sempahore. This contention on a single resource does not occur in the other scenarios - this will lead to thrashing of the scheduler.
> 
> I suspect if it is run under a profiler it will be obvious. With 128 carrier threads, you have increased the contention over a typical machine by an order of magnitude.
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/loom-dev/attachments/20240529/72f5659a/attachment.htm>