Re: Limitations with v2 port implementation

On Apr 08, 2015, at 10:17, Sylvain Joyeux <[email protected]> wrote:

>> We=92ve not looked at the effect of different lock policies, but I=92m v=
ery reluctant to start making those kind of changes unless really necessary=
. And in all honesty that feels like a solution to a solution. The performa=
nce issue is fundamentally driven by the 1-to-N fanout from output ports to=
 input ports. Certainly the locking solution may/will improve performance, =
but the fundamental issue remains.
> =

> I asked because it would point to where the problem might be, *not* as
> a solution to your particular problem (i.e. test the hypothesis of
> "the lock free implementation is the major problem).

Understood

> Just another shot in the dark: do you build with optimizations on ?

Yes. :-)

> Apart from things like configuration, can you detail some other
> user-cases for the original v1 behaviour ? I made the original push
> for the v2 channels *because* the v1 semantic were more than awkward
> (and harmful) when building our systems, so I am very curious to see
> what I missed=85

I=92ll put something together later for you Sylvain (gotta go for now). It=
=92s a good discussion to have. And I don=92t know that anything was really=
 =93missed=94, as much as there are other equally valid ways to do things.

Cheers
S

-- =

Orocos-Dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.mech.kuleuven.be/mailman/listinfo/orocos-dev