It seems like it will take a bit of experimentation to figure out how long to sleep and how deep to keep the queue.
These are not as critical as you might first think.
Try this:
perl -MThread::Queue -E"$Q=new Thread::Queue; $Q->pending while Win32: +:Sleep( 1 )"
On my system, that shows up in Process Manager as 0.0%.
So, running it at a frequency of once every timeslice -- ~10 milliseconds -- will consume negligible cpu whilst ensuring that the queue is (re)populated in a timely manner.
Try:
perl -Mthreads -MThread::Queue -E"async{ sleep }->detach for 1 .. 16; +$Q=new Thread::Queue; $Q->enqueue( qq[/a/longish/path/and/filename$_] + ) for 1 .. 1e6; sleep;"
Which given a typical modern system with 4-16 GB is nothing to concern ourselves with; and is at least 3 order of magnitude greater than I'd recommend as a starting point (100 for 16 threads).
For IO-bound process like this, tuning either or both variables over quiet a large range of values will have little or no effect on overall throughput.
In reply to Re^5: Threaded Code Not Faster Than Non-Threaded -- Why?
by BrowserUk
in thread Threaded Code Not Faster Than Non-Threaded -- Why?
by Tommy
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |