hardcoresushi/libcryfs
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Activity

Started implementing parallel writing to disk

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Sebastian Meßmer 2015-05-16 13:45:25 +02:00
parent c7702f42fe
commit 48c5493780
1 changed files with 22 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

23
implementations/caching/cache/Cache.h vendored
View File

@ -8,6 +8,7 @@
#include <memory>
#include <mutex>
#include <boost/optional.hpp>
#include <future>
namespace blockstore {
namespace caching {
@ -29,6 +30,7 @@ public:
private:
void _popOldEntries();
static void _destructElementsInParallel(std::vector<CacheEntry<Key, Value>> *list);
mutable std::mutex _mutex;
QueueMap<Key, CacheEntry<Key, Value>> _cachedBlocks;
@ -75,9 +77,28 @@ void Cache<Key, Value>::push(const Key &key, Value value) {
template<class Key, class Value>
void Cache<Key, Value>::_popOldEntries() {
std::lock_guard<std::mutex> lock(_mutex);
std::vector<CacheEntry<Key, Value>> entriesToDelete;
while(_cachedBlocks.size() > 0 && _cachedBlocks.peek()->ageSeconds() > PURGE_LIFETIME_SEC) {
_cachedBlocks.pop();
entriesToDelete.push_back(*_cachedBlocks.pop());
}
_destructElementsInParallel(&entriesToDelete);
}
template<class Key, class Value>
void Cache<Key, Value>::_destructElementsInParallel(std::vector<CacheEntry<Key, Value>> *list) {
//TODO Check whether this parallel destruction below works (just comment it in but keep the list->clear()) and check performance impacts. Is it better to have a lower parallelity level, i.e. #core threads?
/*
std::vector<std::future<void>> waitHandles;
for (auto & entry : *list) {
waitHandles.push_back(std::async(std::launch::async, [&entry] {
entry.releaseValue();
}));
}
for (auto & waitHandle : waitHandles) {
waitHandle.wait();
}
*/
list->clear();
}
}