server mainloop: use LinkedBlockingQueue instead of ConcurrentLinkedQueue #17
Conversation
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
…ueue ConcurrentLinkedQueue, having no waiting ability, lead to the use of a homebrew spinlock with a sleep time of 100ms. This meant that if the fuzzer couldn't supply the server with another request immediately, it would incur a 100ms wait, which would have the effect of throttling the fuzzing throughput to 10/s.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
ConcurrentLinkedQueue, having no waiting ability, lead to the use of a homebrew spinlock with a sleep time of 100ms. This meant that if the fuzzer couldn't supply the server with another request immediately (with only one fuzzin instance it never can), it would incur a 100ms wait, which would have the effect of throttling the fuzzing throughput to 10/s.This patch raises my fuzzing rate to ~100/s.