-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Improve websocket performance #37
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see a potential issue that could be due to my poor understanding of the libwebsockets event loop.
From my brief search, if
libwebsockets
is implemented without an event loop likelibev
orlibuv
, message processing is done by active polling. Polling is started by explicitly callinglws_service
.Our event loop looks something like this.
lws_service
is only called byWebsocketServer::Run
, so websocket events are only processed every timeWebsocketServer::Run
loops.WebsocketServer::Run
callslws_service
and then proceeds to acquirerunMutex
to wait until it hits a timeout, the server is stopped or there is a pending message in the queue (which is checked usingmessageCount
).The problem is that
messageCount
is only modified by websocket callbacks. Since therunMutex
lock preventsWebsocketServer::Run
from callinglws_service
, callbacks modifyingmessageCount
will not run until the lock times out andlws_service
is called again. This will prevent themessageCount
trigger from ever going off.The way things are currently setup will increase connection latency as websocket events will only be processed every number of times per second, but it still may be good enough for our use case as it does not need (soft) real-time data.
A potential solution for a future version is to use an event loop like
libev
orlibuv
. There is likely a simpler solution I'm not seeing as well.I may be completely wrong about the event loop, but thought this was worth raising.
On another note, if my event loop model is wrong and messages are actually processed in the background, then would it make sense to change the timeout duration from
0.0166s
tothis->publishPeriod
?