[zeromq-dev] ZeroMQ 4.2 release, planning

Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) rudd-o at rudd-o.com
Fri Oct 7 14:28:46 CEST 2016

On 10/06/2016 02:03 PM, Thomas Rodgers wrote:
>     What about 96 bytes? same penalty?
> If you are going to bump the size to > 64 bytes (x86 cache line size),
> it likely should be rounded up to to 128 bytes, so as to eliminate any
> potential for false sharing on architectures with 64 byte cache lines.
> Having said that, I've been playing with an experimental C++
> implementation of ZMTP using much larger fixed message struct sizes of
> ~512 bytes. It's nothing more than a toy implementation at this point
> and I don't have any real perf numbers, but my reasoning for the
> larger message size is that ZMTP has explicit optimization for small
> messages of < 256 bytes. A size > 256 bytes accommodates all small
> ZMTP messages without an extra allocation and indirection and the
> reference counting overhead of the large message type (all potentially
> much more expensive operations than the cost of simply being larger
> than a cache line), along with message metadata, and likely a decent
> fraction of "large" ZMTP messages.

Looking forward to seeing the benchmarks on that idea!


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.zeromq.org/pipermail/zeromq-dev/attachments/20161007/f4a3348a/attachment.sig>

More information about the zeromq-dev mailing list