How long a NIF can block the Erlang BEAM?

Kenji Rikitake kenji.rikitake@REDACTED
Tue Nov 23 09:34:07 CET 2010

Kenneth and all:

I wonder how long a NIF can block the Erlang BEAM.  To put it another
way, I want to know the maximum time allowed a NIF can run in the BEAM.
One millisecond? Or 100 microseconds? Or even shorter?

I am asking this to find out if I can run a fairly large operation of
initialized a random number table in a NIF.  I haven't really
benchmarked the program, but the code is already there at

What I want to do is to manipulate bits and bytes. No external I/O

Any suggestions welcome.

Kenji Rikitake

(I've been catching up the mailing list so late, so I decided to put
this into another mailing list thread.)

In the message <AANLkTi=XvuuBF64e7TSu46zWi8gp04BxmHSdLZwC7tP7@REDACTED>
dated Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 09:13:02PM +0200,
Kenneth Lundin <kenneth.lundin@REDACTED> writes:
> My and the OTP teams view in this matter is:
> - Reimplementing standard functionality already written in C (but as a
> driver and with asynch thread support) as NIFs is generally a bad
> idea)
> - Implementing potentially blocking function calls with NIFs is a bad idea.
> - You should have VERY strong reasons for writing NIFs at all. It is a
> big point in not writing anything in C if it can be avoided.
> - The implementation of NIFs is more modern than the driver concept
> and among other things the passing of data between Erlang and C-code
> is more efficient for NIFs than for drivers. The driver concept does
> still have its place and advantages especially for
> handling external asynchronous input to Erlang processes. We plan to
> improve the driver mechanisms and make solutions
> from the NIFs to be available when writing drivers as well.
> If it is correct that NIFs for file operations is 2 times faster than
> the current file operations in raw mode we will do something about it
> because that difference is not justified. But first we must
> investigate if that really is the case and where the performance is
> lost.
> /Kenneth Erlang/OTP Ericsson
> On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Edmond Begumisa
> <ebegumisa@REDACTED> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I hope the Couch team isn't planning on doing this by default -- something
> > about it makes me nervous...
> >
> > When CouchDB is on it's own, it might not be alarming/noticeable, but I'm
> > using CouchDB "embedded" in a wider Erlang/OTP application stack (i.e. where
> > Couch is just one of many OTP apps running in the *SAME* VM -- I have a few
> > hacks for avoiding socket communication.) I too worry about the potential
> > for NIF-endowed couch io disturbing the balance of Erlang's scheduling.
> >
> > It would be good to see similar benchmarking with the VM concurrently doing
> > things other than handling couch-related requests (which are implicitly
> > synchronised in your case.)
> >
> > - Edmond -
> >
> > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:59:11 +1100, Joel Reymont <joelr1@REDACTED> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On Oct 24, 2010, at 7:16 PM, Kenneth Lundin wrote:
> >>
> >>> I wonder how responsive the system is to other events when running the
> >>> benchmark.
> >>
> >> The benchmark simulates several hundred clients hitting a (mochiweb) web
> >> server to read and write couchdb (json) documents. The system seems to stay
> >> -highly- responsive, 10x so compared to the same system not using NIFs at
> >> all.
> >>
> >> If low write response time is taken as a measure of system responsiveness
> >> then the first graph shows that the responsiveness of the system has
> >> increased dramatically. The write response here is the take taken to process
> >> a web request to write a couch document.
> >>
> >> ---
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ________________________________________________________________
> >> erlang-questions (at) mailing list.
> >> See
> >> To unsubscribe; mailto:erlang-questions-unsubscribe@REDACTED

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list