CharlesIrvine
Need some advice for Mozart performance testing
I have just started performance testing for mozart (BPM platform) and I am seeing something I don’t understand and am hoping to get some advice.
I have a GenServer module named ProcessEngine. Instances of this module are spawned via a DynamicSupervisor.
Each ProcessEngine instance spawned is initialized with a data structure representing a defined business process. To clarify, a “business process” is not an Elixir process.
The ProcessEngine instances runs until the “business process” has ran out of work to do, that is, it has finished it’s intended function.
So, here is the issue that I am trying to understand.
If I spawn 1,000 GenServers, they finish execution in about 300,000 microseconds:
iex [09:24 :: 6] > :timer.tc(fn -> run_process_n_times(%{}, :process_with_single_service_task, 1000) end)
{287086, :ok}
If I spawn 10 times that number, i.e. 10,000, they finish execution in 26,602,559, or about 100 times longer than the execution of a 1000 instances.
iex [09:24 :: 8] > :timer.tc(fn -> run_process_n_times(%{}, :process_with_single_service_task, 10000) end)
{26602559, :ok}
So, executing 10 times more GenServer instances takes 100 times the time to complete. I had assumed that execution time would increase linearly with the number of GenServer instances.
If I run the observer, I do see scheduler utilization go to 100% for 2 out of 12 schedulers. It’s always scheduler 1 & 2 that to to 100%. Couple of questions:
Why don’t I see more schedulers become active?
Is the 100% for two schedulers indicative of a problem?
Finally, is there any advice on how to analyze this?
Most Liked
al2o3cr
One thing that’s not helping concurrency: doing work in init means that start_link takes longer to return. Consider moving the code from ProcessEngine.init to a handle_continue callback.
Another thing that isn’t helping concurrency: init and execute both need to make calls to singleton processes (ProcessModelService and ProcessService)
With a nearly 100x increase based on 10x more input, I’d start by carefully looking at where data’s being collected in the code; all it takes is one List.append that’s called per-ProcessEngine to make things quadratic.
Some other random thoughts:
-
terminatedoesn’t do any formatting on thereasonargument, so if you callProcess.exit(some_pid, :shutdown)(eg) you’ll get:shutdownas an argument - and the ProcessEngine target will crash! -
harping on the same point:
terminateis not guaranteed, there are lots of (admittedly uncommon) scenarios where it will not run before the process disappears. Consider checkpointing the state during intermediate steps, if “resuming” is important. -
consider extracting type-specific code like this to a per-step (or per-type) “callback module”
al2o3cr
Instead of checking type everywhere, you’d define a single map:
@callback_modules %{
decision: DecisionCallbacks,
service: ServiceCallbacks,
send: SendCallbacks,
...
}
A method like complete_able simplifies to:
defp complete_able(t) do
@callback_modules[t.type].complete_able(t)
end
DecisionCallbacks then defines:
defmodule DecisionCallbacks do
def complete_able(_task), do: true
...more functions used elsewhere in ProcessEngine...
end
This would also be a valuable place to utilize a behaviour to ensure that the callback modules implement a consistent interface.
A further, even more dynamic approach, would have a field on Task that contains the callback module name. That would allow tasks with the same type to have different callbacks. Whether that’s a bug or a feature will depend on your specific needs ![]()
One general note about both variants: they make the code easier to read, but also obscure it from parts of Elixir’s static analysis.
For instance, you would get a compiler error if you wrote DecisionCallbacks.complete_able() (calling with the wrong arity) explicitly, but writing @callback_modules[t.type].complete_able() will only crash at RUNTIME.







