I read sync.Pool
design, but find it is two logic, why we need localPool to solve lock compete. We can just use chan to implement one.
Using channel is 4x times faster than sync.pool
!
Besides pool can clear object, what advantage does it have?
This is the pool implementation and benchmarking code:
package client
import (
"runtime"
"sync"
"testing"
)
type MPool chan interface{}
type A struct {
s string
b int
overflow *[2]*[]*string
}
var p = sync.Pool{
New: func() interface{} { return new(A) },
}
var mp MPool = make(chan interface{}, 100)
func get() interface{} {
select {
case r := <-mp:
return r
default:
return new(A)
}
}
func put(a interface{}) {
select {
case mp <- a:
default:
}
return
}
func pool() {
a := p.Get()
p.Put(a)
}
func init() {
runtime.GOMAXPROCS(8)
}
func BenchmarkName(b *testing.B) {
for i := 0; i < 20; i++ {
p.Put(new(A))
}
b.ResetTimer()
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
for i := 0; i < 100; i++ {
go func() {
p.Put(p.Get())
}()
}
}
}
func BenchmarkNotPool(b *testing.B) {
for i := 0; i < 20; i++ {
put(new(A))
}
b.ResetTimer()
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
for i := 0; i < 100; i++ {
a := get()
put(a)
}
}
}
You are not benchmarking the same thing, so you can't compare the results.
BenchmarkName()
launches goroutines which have significant overheard and you don't even wait for those goroutines to finish, whileBenchmarkNotPool()
just gets and puts an object in the pool in the same goroutine.If you modify
BenchmarkName()
to do the same, the benchmark results actually show it's the other way:sync.Pool
is more than 3 times faster, which is true, so that's its use / advantage.Results:
Also see related question: How to implement Memory Pooling in Golang