 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
.NET Forum / .NET Framework / New Users / July 2006interop & performance
I have an application which use has a DLL with 100+ (auto-generated) Managed C++ wrapper around some native API. Compare to a purely version my application has some performance issue and I just realized it is probably due to the security check which happen just before each of the (numerous) call into this native API. Now I know that, perhaps, I could tag my MC++ wrapper with <SuppressUnmanagedCodeSecurityAttribute> But I wonder if there is not an other call I could place in the Main() function (such as Permission.Demand() or stuff like that) which will achieve the same result? After all my code this is for a desktop application with as much right as the user. > I have an application which use has a DLL with 100+ (auto-generated) Managed > C++ wrapper around some native API. > > Compare to a purely version my application has some performance issue and I > just realized it is probably due to the security check which happen just > before each of the (numerous) call into this native API. I don't know how much impact the security configuration has, but transitioning between managed and unmanaged context takes time too, as well as marshalling parameters back and forth. If you have to do this lots of times per second, this will have a significant impact. If that is your problem, there is very little you can do about that while keeping your design as it is now.  SignatureKind regards, Bruno. bruno_nos_pam_van_dooren@hotmail.com Remove only "_nos_pam" It could only be security. No parameter marshalling happen, as I am using C and Pointers (not array!) 1 million method call (which just increment an int by 1) takes 94ms in pure native or .NET but 700ms when I use a mix of both. I suspect the security stack walk to be the culprit... >> I have an application which use has a DLL with 100+ (auto-generated) >> Managed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If that is your problem, there is very little you can do about that while > keeping your design as it is now. SUCS is indeed a significant performance improvement for unmanmaged calls. Not sure if it applies to your scenario - but give it a try. Just be aware of the implications - this means that a partially trusted callers can use your wrapper to call Win32 without having unmanaged code access. dominick > I have an application which use has a DLL with 100+ (auto-generated) > Managed C++ wrapper around some native API. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > After all my code this is for a desktop application with as much right > as the user. Well I don't have any plugin API so there is no problem.... But my question was: is there a replacement of [SUCS] ? like using a demand or similar stuff? > SUCS is indeed a significant performance improvement for unmanmaged calls. > Not sure if it applies to your scenario - but give it a try. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> After all my code this is for a desktop application with as much right >> as the user. Ah ok - adding SUCS will not improve performance - replacing Assert with SUCS is usually a perf improvement. > Well I don't have any plugin API so there is no problem.... > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >>> After all my code this is for a desktop application with as much >>> right as the user. > Ah ok - adding SUCS will not improve performance - replacing Assert with > SUCS is usually a perf improvement. hu.... your statment is kind of confusing..... Anyway: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnpag/html/scal enetchapt05.asp explains it all! This one! CodeAccessPermission.Assert() Anyway, it's not as good as SupressUnmanagedCodeSecurityAttribute > Ah ok - adding SUCS will not improve performance - replacing Assert with > SUCS is usually a perf improvement. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >>>> After all my code this is for a desktop application with as much >>>> right as the user. :) that's what i said... dominick > This one! > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >>>>> After all my code this is for a desktop application with as much >>>>> right as the user. Ho... this Assert? I didn't know about it! It's why I was asking! I though you were talking about System.Diagnostic.Assert I though it was non sensical! I should have know better! Someone who thinks SUCS is an understandable acronym is likely to have a second meaning! ;-) > :) that's what i said... > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >>>>>> After all my code this is for a desktop application with as much >>>>>> right as the user. :)) > Ho... this Assert? > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >>>>>>> After all my code this is for a desktop application with as much >>>>>>> right as the user. Turing on that attribute will drastically improve performance ... I'm using it in my SQLite ADO.NET 2.0 provider, which calls the native database engine. I was floored at how close the performance was to raw unmanaged C++ ... I did a few performance benchmarks comparing raw native C++ to ADO.NET C#: http://sqlite.phxsoftware.com/forums/thread/37.aspx Robert > Ho... this Assert? > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >>>>>>> After all my code this is for a desktop application with as much >>>>>>> right as the user. Anyway Interop has a cost and it seems you can't get away with it... Pff... SignatureRegards, Lloyd Dupont NovaMind development team NovaMind Software Mind Mapping Software <www.nova-mind.com> > Turing on that attribute will drastically improve performance ... > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] >>>>>>>> After all my code this is for a desktop application with as much >>>>>>>> right as the user. Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.