Does Erlang always copy messages between processes on the same node?

A faithful implementation of the actor message-passing semantics means that message contents are deep-copied from a logical point-of-view, even for immutable types. Deep-copying of message contents remains a bottleneck for implementations the actor model, so for performance some implementations support zero-copy message passing (although it's still deep-copy from the programmer's point-of-view).

Is zero-copy message-passing implemented开发者_如何转开发 at all in Erlang? Between nodes it obviously can't be implemented as such, but what about between processes on the same node? This question is related.

I don't think your assertion is correct at all - deep copying of inter-process messages isn't a bottleneck in Erlang, and with the default VM build/settings, this is exactly what all Erlang systems are doing.

Erlang process heaps are completely separate from each other, and the message queue is located in the process heap, so messages must be copied. This is also true for transferring data into and out of ETS tables as their data is stored in a separate allocation area from process heaps.

There are a number of shared datastructures however. Large binaries (>64 bytes long) are generally allocated in a node-wide area and are reference counted. Erlang processes just store references to these binaries. This means that if you create a large binary and send it to another process, you're only sending the reference.

Sending data between processes is actually worse in terms of allocation size than you might imagine - sharing inside a term isn't preserved during the copy. This means that if you carefully construct a term with sharing to reduce memory consumption, it will expand to its unshared size in the other process. You can see a practical example in the OTP Efficiency Guide.

As Nikolaus Gradwohl pointed out, there was an experimental hybrid heap mode for the VM which did allow term sharing between processes and enabled zero-copy message passing. It hasn't been a particularly promising experiment as I understand it - it requires extra locking and complicates the existing ability of processes to independently garbage collect. So not only is copying inter-process messages not the usual bottleneck in Erlang systems, allowing it actually reduced performance.

AFAIK there was/is experimental support for zero-copy message-passing in erlang using the -shared or -hybrid modell. I read a blog post in 2009 claiming that it's broken on smp machines, but I have no idea about the current status

As has been mentioned here and in other questions current versions of Erlang basically copy everything except for larger binaries. In older pre-SMP times it was feasible to not copy but pass references. While this resulted in very fast message passing it created other problems in the implementation, primarily it made garbage collection more difficult and complicated implementation. I think that today passing references and having shared data could result in excessive locking and synchronisation which is, of course, not a Good Thing.

I wrote the accepted answer to that other question you're referencing, and in it I give you a direct pointer to this line of code:

message = copy_struct(message, msize, &hp, &bp->off_heap);

This is in a function called when the Erlang run-time system needs to send a message, and it's not inside any kind of "if" that could cause it to be skipped. So, as far as I can tell, the answer is "yes, it's always copied." (That's not strictly true -- there is an "if", but it seems to be dealing with exceptional cases, not the normal code-flow path.)

(I'm ignoring the hybrid heap option brought up by Nikolaus. It looks like he's right, but since this isn't the way Erlang is normally built and it has its own penalties, I don't see that it's worth considering as a way to answer your concern.)

I don't know why you're considering 10 GByte/sec a bottleneck, though. Nothing short of registers or CPU cache goes faster in the computer, and such memories are small, thus constituting a kind of bottleneck themselves. Besides which, the zero-copy idea you're proposing would require locking in the case of cross-CPU message passing in a multi-core system, which is also a bottleneck. We're already paying the locking penalty once in this function to copy the message into the other process's message queue; why pay it again later when that process gets around to reading the message?

Bottom line, I don't think your ideas of ways to make it go faster would actually help much.