[erlang-questions] Timer implementation models

[Jesper Louis Andersen]

The timer module is often a performance problem, so avoiding that is a good
idea (It's in the efficiency guide as well).

Gen server variants:

Model 1 will reset the timer if an event arrives. This means the timer will
never trigger if events arrive before 1000ms each time (it'll starve the
timeout message forever).

Model 2, seems a bit better to me.

Raw variants:

All models look fine to me.



On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:55 AM Chaitanya Chalasani <cchalasani@REDACTED>
wrote:

> Thank you Nathaniel, understood about the precision.
>
> If precision isn’t my criteria and considering 100s to 1000s of timers
> running concurrently, is there any advantage for the model 2 over model 3.
>
> > On 31-Oct-2017, at 4:46 AM, Nathaniel Waisbrot <nathaniel@REDACTED>
> wrote:
> >
> > Well for one, send_after/3 and send_interval/3 will produce slightly
> different timing.
> >
> > Suppose your do_something/0 takes 50ms to run. Then in "Model 2",
> ignoring any complexities of scheduling, your function will be invoked at
> >
> > t+1000, t+2050, t+3100, t+4150, t+5200, t+6250, ...
> >
> > While "Model 3", under the same simplifying assumption would be invoked
> at
> >
> > t+1000, t+2000, t+3000, t+4000, t+5000, t+6000, ...
> >
> >
> > To give you a few more choices:
> >
> > - When using gen_server, I prefer to call timer:apply_after/4 and
> timer:apply_interval/4. I either have them call gen_server:cast/2 or a
> local function that calls cast.
> > - When using gen_server, you can give a timeout in your callback
> response. This works quite differently from the timer module, but might be
> useful for some things
> > - When using gen_statem, you can give a timeouts like gen_server, but a
> wider variety of behavior is available
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Oct 30, 2017, at 6:35 PM, Chaitanya Chalasani <cchalasani@REDACTED>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I have hundred’s of processes each running its own timers.
> >> I can think of the following models. Wanted to know the pros and cons
> of each model.
> >>
> >> ** Model 1 **
> >> loop1(State) ->
> >> receive
> >> after 1000 ->
> >>     do_someting()
> >> end.
> >>
> >> ** Model 2 **
> >> loop2(State) ->
> >> erlang:send_after(1000, self(), timeout),
> >> receive
> >>   timeout ->
> >>     do_someting(),
> >>     erlang:send_after(1000, self(), timeout)
> >> end.
> >>
> >> ** Model 3 **
> >> loop3(State) ->
> >> timer:send_interval(1000, self(), timeout),
> >> loop3a(State).
> >>
> >> loop3a(State) ->
> >> receive
> >>   timeout ->
> >>     do_someting()
> >> end.
> >>
> >> The above three models using the gen_server -
> >>
> >> ** Model 1 **
> >> init(_Args) ->
> >> {ok, State, 1000}.
> >>
> >> handle_info(timeout, State) ->
> >> do_someting(),
> >> {noreply, State, 1000}
> >>
> >> ** Model 2 **
> >> init(_Args) ->
> >> erlang:send_after(1000, self(), timeout),
> >> {ok, State}.
> >>
> >> handle_info(timeout, State) ->
> >> do_someting(),
> >> erlang:send_after(1000, self(), timeout),
> >> {noreply, State}
> >>
> >> ** Model 3 **
> >> init(_Args) ->
> >> timer:send_interval(1000, self(), timeout),
> >> {ok, State}.
> >>
> >> handle_info(timeout, State) ->
> >> do_someting(),
> >> {noreply, State}
> >>
> >> /Chaitanya
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> erlang-questions mailing list
> >> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> >> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20171031/98965db8/attachment.htm>