Re: [LAD] a *simple* ring buffer, comments pls?

On 8 July 2011 12:24, James Morris <jwm.art.net(a)gmail.com> wrote: MSG_BUF_SIZE = 32, MSG_COUNT = 700000 JACK RING BUF: [sirrom@scrapyard msg_test]$ time ./msg_test msg_test.c: 164 main(): read back loop count:700032 real 0m0.136s user 0m0.260s sys 0m0.003s [sirrom@scrapyard msg_test]$ time ./msg_test msg_test.c: 164 main(): read back loop count:700032 real 0m0.136s user 0m0.263s sys 0m0.000s [sirrom@scrapyard msg_test]$ time ./msg_test msg_test.c: 164 main(): read back loop count:700032 real 0m0.142s user 0m0.273s sys 0m0.003s MY RING BUF WITH ATOMIC POINTERS [sirrom@scrapyard msg_test]$ time ./msg_test msg_test.c: 286 main(): read back loop count:702657 real 0m0.169s user 0m0.330s sys 0m0.000s [sirrom@scrapyard msg_test]$ time ./msg_test msg_test.c: 286 main(): read back loop count:738329 real 0m0.173s user 0m0.337s sys 0m0.000s [sirrom@scrapyard msg_test]$ time ./msg_test msg_test.c: 286 main(): read back loop count:753976 real 0m0.171s user 0m0.333s sys 0m0.000s A very simple data integrity check was used, (note: pointers to data were stored in the rbufs rather than data), the main thread set the items data to point to the item itself. the integrity check was that it should come back intact, still pointing to itself. success in both instances. JACK's ringbuf, as most will have undoubtedly known all along, is faster, and the test code required 50000 iterations less than when using my ring buf. maybe somewhere, the atomics are required? james.