• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    A Perfect Knob to Scale Thread Pool on Runtime

    2022-08-24 12:56:32FaisalBahadurArifIqbalUmarInsafUllahFahadAlgarniMuhammadAsgharKhanandSamihMostafa
    Computers Materials&Continua 2022年7期

    Faisal Bahadur, Arif Iqbal Umar, Insaf Ullah, Fahad Algarni, Muhammad Asghar Khanand Samih M.Mostafa

    1Department of Information Technology, Hazara University, Mansehra, 21300, Pakistan

    2Hamdard Institute of Engineering and Technology, Islamabad Campus, Pakistan

    3College of Computing and Information Technology, The University of Bisha, Bisha, Saudi Arabia

    4Faculty of Computers and Information, South Valley University, Qena, 83523, Egypt

    Abstract: Scalability is one of the utmost nonfunctional requirement of server applications, because it maintains an effective performance parallel to the large fluctuating and sometimes unpredictable workload.In order to achieve scalability, thread pool system (TPS) has been used extensively as a middleware service in server applications.The size of thread pool is the most significant factor, that affects the overall performance of servers.Determining the optimal size of thread pool dynamically on runtime is a challenging problem.The most widely used and simple method to tackle this problem is to keep the size of thread pool equal to the request rate, i.e., the frequencyoriented thread pool (FOTP).The FOTPs are the most widely used TPSs in the industry, because of the implementation simplicity, the negligible overhead and the capability to use in any system.However, the frequency-based schemes only focused on one aspect of changes in the load, and that is the fluctuations in request rate.The request rate alone is an imperfect knob to scale thread pool.Thus, this paper presents a workload profiling based FOTP, that focuses on request size (service time of request) besides the request rate as a knob to scale thread pool on runtime, because we argue that the combination of both truly represents the load fluctuation in server-side applications.We evaluated the results of the proposed system against state of the art TPS of Oracle Corporation (by a client-server-based simulator) and concluded that our system outperformed in terms of both; the response times and throughput.

    Keywords: Scalability; performance; middleware; workload profiling; multithreading; thread pool

    1 Introduction

    Scalability is one of the utmost non-functional requirements of server-side applications [1],because it increases performance proportional to the resources added in the system on high loads[2].The scalability is entirely dependent upon the middleware architecture, which means that the middleware must be designed in the view of scaling [3].A high scalable system can be achieved only, if the designers and software engineers consider scalability at the initial stages of software development life cycle, when architectural choices are made.Thus, middleware architecture makes server-side applications scalable, highly available and highly performant [4,5].

    The most significant approach used by most of the middleware in order to improve performance and scalability is TPS [6].The TPS is a multithreading architecture, that is used as a middleware, that executes incoming tasks (requests) simultaneously.The TPS has been used frequently as a middleware concurrency control service in web servers, application servers, distributed object computing infrastructures, ultra-large-scale (ULS) systems, for better performance.

    The key concern in TPS is the dynamic optimization of thread pool size, that determines the overall performance of TPS and improves quality of service [7].The experimental studies have proved that the most significant factor that effects the overall performance of application servers is the size of thread pool [8].The TPS-based systems are overloaded either due to the smaller or larger thread pool sizes, instead of adopting an optimal one.Smaller than the optimal pool size wastes processing resources and requests waitmost of the time for the availability of thread, that suffers response times and throughput [9].On the other hand, large pool size than system’s capacity increases thread related overheads that suffer response times [9].These overheads ultimately make the system busymost of the time to manage these overheads instead of letting threads execute requests, thus degrade system performance.These overheads include context switching overhead, scheduling overhead and synchronization overhead.Furthermore, if there are more shared resources between threads, then more synchronization causes additional scheduling overhead that further reduces system performance.

    Thus, the key concern in TPS-based systems is the dynamic optimization of thread pool size that avoids too small or too large pool size in order to elude execution time overhead [7].However,determining the optimal size of thread pool dynamically on runtime is a challenging problem [9].Therefore, majority of the commercial server applications use a simple frequency oriented TPS [6],that uses fluctuations in the request rate to optimize pool size.Using the request rate as a knob to scale thread pool is widely used because of its implementation simplicity, the negligible overhead and the capability to use it in any system.These systems are either bounded, where thread pool size is specified empirically by minimum and maximum limits at server initialization time [10], or unbounded [6], that avoids specifying upper limit and always keeps thread pool size equal to the request rate.

    However, the request rate alone is an imperfect knob to scale thread pool, because request rate is not the only reason that changes the load on the server [11].There is another way in which the load on the server can be changed besides request rate, and that is the request size (service time of request) [11].This type of load fluctuation is too common in server-side applications.However, the service times of newly submitted requests are unknown at schedule time [12].

    Thus, in this paper, the proposed scheme uses a dynamic workload profiling procedure, that computes the service times of newly entered requests in the system and records these times in a hash table.In every second, the average of service times of requests (submitted to the system) is calculated.The average service time is multiplied by the current request rate to yield a number that represents an optimal thread pool size.

    The rest of the paper is organized as follows.Related work is given in Section 2.The design of the proposed system is presented in Section 3.Section 4 is a validation of the proposed system.And finally, the conclusion and future work are presented in Section 5.

    2 Related Work

    This section explores the tuning strategies for thread pool size optimization presented in the past.

    The system resource based TPS has been presented in [13], where CPU and memory utilization metrics are used to optimize thread pool size.However, the system resource metric is a low-level metric that cannot be used as an actual pointer to overload condition.Moreover, successively measuring different types of resource usages after short intervals consumes computational resources and decrease machine capacity [14].

    The response time is considered as a performance metric in [15,16] for TPS optimization.The optimization policies are based on response time observations.After specified time intervals, an algorithm compares successive response times on specific pool size and either increases pool size if response times are higher or decreases pool size if response times are better.However, the response time metric becomes vague and useless for server applications that have requests of different processing times, e.g., multi-tier web applications.Hence, policies [17] have been suggested to smooth response time metric to make it effective in multi-tier applications.

    The average idle time (AIT) of queued requests has been used in [18,19] to optimize the pool size, however, periodically calculating AIT involves stalling the request queue that increases synchronization overhead that effects system performance.

    The throughput metric is used in [20] to optimize the pool size.On throughput fall, the algorithm gradually increases pool size until throughput stability.However, assessing only throughput fall to tune the pool size may affect the response times of the clients.

    The prediction based TPSs have been presented in [21-23], that predict an expected thread pool size that may require in the future, so that, the pool size can be configured in priori.An obvious limitation of all the prediction-based schemes presented is that, the predictions might be inaccurate due the unpredictable workload on the servers.

    The fuzzy [24] and heuristic approaches [25] have been attempted in TPS optimization.However,systems having variation in the nature and size of requests can affect these algorithms.

    The frequency based schemes [26-32] are the most widely used TPSs in the industry [6], that optimizes thread pool size based on request rate on the server.The Oracle Corporation’s Java5.0 provides ThreadPoolExecutor [26], that optimizes pool size on the basis of client’s request rate (i.e., frequency).The pool size increases gradually on high request rate up to amaximumlimit, that defines a boundary that cannot be exceeded.The maximum limit must be defined initially and can’t be changed on run time.If the maximum limit is initialized with an unbounded option (Integer.MAX_VALUE), then ThreadPoolExecutor behaves as an unbounded TPS, where an unlimited upscaling of thread pool size is considered.TheApache Software Foundation provides a TPS calledWatermark Executor [27] to boost up the performance of web services.This TPS is an extension of ThreadPoolExecutor [26] in the formof a balancing act between request frequency and queue draining speed.If the request queue gets to a certain size (watermark), more threads will be added until the maximum number of threads.This is different from ThreadPoolExecutor [26] that starts adding threads as soon as all the other threads are used.A real time middleware is presented in [28], that optimized the size of thread pool by linear approach.The middleware is presented for Cyber Physical Systems (CPS).The thread pool size is optimized based on the incoming load condition (frequency).Similarly, another real time middleware is presented in [29] that utilized a dynamic thread pool that receives, processes and retransmits the requests arrived in a distributed IoT environment.This scheme optimized thread pool size by the rate of received packets (frequency) and the retransmission time of packets.A distributed FOTP is presented in [30] for clusters, that uses non-blocking queue that drives thread safety not from locks but from atomic operation.This design was targeted to only distributed shared memory systems.The TPSs at each node of the cluster are optimized on the basis of request rate on corresponding node.Another distributed FOTP is presented in [31], where FOTPs running at the backend servers are optimized on request rate, and memory utilization is assessed to detect an overload condition on backend servers.The queuing theory based TPS is presented in [32], however, an offline system profiling strategy is adopted and run the offline profiling strategy on n-tier system for 100 min in order to generate near optimal thread pool size of each tier.The offline system profiling procedure is tedious, cumbersome, and impractical.Moreover, this approach is ineffective due to the dynamics and unpredictability of the workload, especially in the cloud, hence it needs to regenerate thread pool size when workload characteristics change.

    None of the frequency based TPS considered to calculate the combination of request size (service time) and request rate on run time to represent a true load on the system, because the real load fluctuation is truly represented by these two factors which must be calculated on runtime.Hence, this paper presents a dynamic workload profiling based FOTP, that computes the service times of newly entered requests in the system (on runtime) and records these times in a hash table.In every second,the average of service times of requests (submitted to the system) is calculated and multiplied by the current request rate to determine an optimal thread pool size.

    3 System Architecture of Proposed FOTP

    This section discusses the system architecture of the dyna mic workload profiling based FOTP.The FOTP is composed of collection of components shown in Fig.1.

    Figure 1: System architecture of workload profiling based FOTP running in a multi-threaded server

    The Receiver is a thread, that receives client’s requests for processing.On every request arrival,it increments the Counter object that is used to keep track of the request rate per second on FOTP.After every second, the value of the Counter is repeatedly saved and reset to zero by the Frequency Detector (timer).In this way, both Counter and Frequency Detector keep track of the request rate per second on FOTP.The Receiver forwards request to the Tag_Binder for further processing, that uses the request’s identifier (ID) as an index into the hash table to fetch the service time of requests.If it is found, then it adds the service time to the variable named total_ST (i.e., total service time), binds a service time tag with the request and finally push the request in the request queue.If request’s ID does not exist in the hash table, then the request is simply pushed into the request queue.Eq.(1) is used to calculate the sum of service times of all requests entered in the system per second, which is represented by total_ST variable.

    The total_ST is accessed by the Frequency Detector to calculate the average of service time per second.This is a timer thread, that activates after every second, and keeps track of the frequency of change in the real load every second on the system.The real load comprises of the combination of request rate and the service times of all requests entered per second in the system.The request rate per second is tracked by the Counter and saved in the Frequency object.The service times of all requests entered per second in the system is tracked by the total_ST variable.Eq.(2) is used by the Frequency Detector to calculate the average of service times of all requests entered per second in the system.

    For all requests entered per second in the system from 1 to Counter, the avg_ST (i.e., average service time) is calculated by dividing the sum of their service time by Counter.However, the service time of requests are unknown when they first time enter in the system.Thus, the dynamic workload profiling procedure computes the service times of newly entered requests by time stamping and records the service times in a hash table.The requests are time stamped at two stages, right before the request execution (StartTime), and finally, after request completion (EndTime).The stamps are only marked on those requests that are entered first time in the system and their service time is not present in the hash table.This table maintains the service times of each request.The request_ID is used as an indexed into the hash table by a hash function, that keeps the service time of request if index exists.By using the request_ID as an index, the average search time complexity of any element is O (1).The untagged requests are marked with the StartTime stamp by thread just before their execution.After request completion, these untagged requests are again marked with the EndTime stamp and handover to the ST_Calculator (i.e., service time calculator).Eq.(3) is used by the ST_Calculator to calculates the service time of request.The ST_Calculator records the service time in the hash table.Finally, it enqueues the request in the Response Queue.

    When Frequency Detector runs, it saves the Counter in the Frequency object, computes the avg_ST, resets the total_ST and Counter to zero and finally, it runs the dynamic tuning strategy (DTS)thread, that is responsible to optimize the size of thread pool.The thread pool is a dynamic linked list,that holds threads to execute client’s request.The thread pool expands dynamically, when threads are added in it by the DTS, when needed.It also shrinks, when request rate falls down from high to low request rate, and some threads becomes idle in the pool till certain specified threshold time.Every thread of thread pool is equipped with a timer, that starts only when thread is idle in the pool.The timer destroys corresponding thread, if it is idle for threshold time (500 milliseconds), in order to reduce the pool size.

    TheDTS thread is run by the FrequencyDetector every second before finishing its own execution.It dynamically optimizes thread pool size by assessing the request rate and service times of queued requests.When it starts running for the first time, it keeps its pool size parallel to the request rate, however, in the subsequent runs, it also assesses the workload’s service times.

    The avg_ST (Eq.(2)) is passed to the DTS by the Frequency Detector and the current request rate is read by theDTS fromFrequency object.The DTSmaintains an appropriate number of threads in the thread pool by assessing avg_ST (Eq.(2)) and request rate.Eq.(4) is used to calculate an appropriate number of threads in thread pool by the DTS.

    where, the λ in Eq.(4) is the request rate per second.

    Suppose that, the request rate is 10 requests per second, where all requests have service times of 2s,then according to Eq.(4), thePoolSize=10*2=20.In case, if all requests have service time of 0.5 s, thenPoolSize=10*0.5=5.Since 5 threads can handle 10 requests (of 0.5 s) in one second, hence this will not affect the throughput.However, the response times of 5 out of 10 requests will be compromised,i.e., 5 requests will have to wait for 0.5 s for thread availability and consecutive request arrival will further increase the wait times of requests.Hence, for small service timed workload (having avg_ST less than or equal to 1 s), we only consider λ(i.e., request arrival rate) to set a pool size, so that 10 threads can be assigned to 10 requests to gain response time improvement.Hence, Eq.(4) is used to tune the pool size only whenService Time(k)/nis greater than 1, that represents high service time intensity workload of greater than 1 s.Otherwise, we only consider λ as the pool size.In short, this paper uses the following if-else construct to tune the pool size.

    The algorithm of DTS to tune the pool size is given in Fig.2.

    Figure 2: Algorithm of dynamic tuning strategy

    At the start of the algorithm, the pool size is set to the request rate, if workload (avg_ST) per second is smaller than or equal to 1 s.Otherwise, if the workload is greater than 1 s, then pool size is set to the product of the request rate and average service times of requests.

    4 Validating the Proposed FOTP

    In this section, we compared the performance of workload profiling based FOTP with Thread-PoolExecutor [26] on different workloads.The ThreadPoolExecutor uses request rate to optimize thread pool size.Both of the TPSs are initialized with 10 threads.This test has been performed on a single system, through jPoolRunner [33] simulation toolkit.We embedded both of the TPSs in the server-tier of simulation system through its extension framework.The client and the server tiers of the simulation system are running on the localhost i.e., single machine.

    The workload used for this test is depicted Tab.1.The workload is mostly I/O bound, because we are performing this simulation test on a single system.The dynamic workload is kept small to protect seizing processing resources.The 50% of workload is high I/O intensive (2 s) in order to show the effectiveness of proposed FOTP system over pool size that improves system performance.Fig.3 depicts the load generated for 1 min, that follows poisson distribution, with λ=100.In Fig.3 the x axis represents time in seconds and y axis represents total number of requests sent on specific time.

    Table 1: Workload detail

    Figure 3: The generated load on the server

    Fig.4 presents a comparative analysis of pool sizes maintained by both of the TPSs in the wholetest run.The ThreadPoolExecutor kept its pool size equals to the highest request rate generated duringthe test run.Initially, the pool size is 10, afterward, the pool size is parallel to the next highest requestrate.The proposed FOTP kept its pool size equal to the request rate at the start, as the service timesare unknown to the FOTP.The service times of four different types of requests are measured andrecorded by the dynamic workload profiler on the very first arrival in the first second, hence the poolsize raised (≈114) further in the next second due to assessing both request rate and service time ofthe Fig.4, that on 10thsecond, the FOTP increased the pool size more than ThreadPoolExecutor.The FOTP created threads more than the request rate due to the large service times of requests, hence all of the requests got a proper response.

    Figure 4: Comparative analysis of pool sizes

    Fig.5 is a comparative analysis of throughputs of both schemes, which shows that the FOTP produces higher throughput than ThreadPoolExecutor due to its appropriate pool size in the whole test run.It can be seen in the figure, that the ThreadPoolExecutor took a little bit long time to complete than FOTP.The FOTP produces all responses in less amount of time (60 s) than ThreadPoolExecutor, because of its appropriate pool size.In case of FOTP, all of the requests almost got a proper response by available threads in the pool, hence the average throughput is 98 responses per second in Fig.6, whereas, the ThreadPoolExecutor produces 80 responses per second.

    Figure 5: Comparative analysis of throughputs

    Figure 6: Comparative analysis of average responses produced per second by both schemes

    Fig.7 presents a comparative analysis of response times of both systems.The FOTP reduces response times as compared to ThreadPoolExecutor, because it provides an optimal number of threads in the pool that picks and executes requests in performance efficient manner.ThreadPoolExecutor created small number of threads in the pool, as a result, the requests have to wait more in the queue for thread availability, hence, response times increased ultimately.The 50th, 90thand 95thpercentiles of FOTP are around 2 s.This is due to the workload characteristic of service time, because 50% workload has service time of 2 s.In case of ThreadPoolExecutor, the percentile response times have increased due to the waiting of requests in the request queue due to inappropriate quantity of threads in the pool.

    Figure 7: Comparative analysis of response times percentiles produced by both schemes

    5 Conclusion and Future Work

    This paper presented a workload profiling based frequency-oriented thread pool system, that focused on the combination of request size (service time) and the request rate to represent the real load on the server.The real load is used to set an optimal thread pool size of frequency-oriented thread pool system on runtime.Thus, the paper presented a combination of both; the request size (service time)and the request rate, as a knob to scale thread pool on runtime.We evaluated the proposed scheme against a request rate based TPS on high service time workload, and we found that, the proposed scheme is creating an optimal pool size.Hence, as compared to the request rate based TPS, the average throughput of the proposed scheme is increased by 22.5% and the response time reduction is 35% for 50thpercentile, 59.8% for 90thpercentile and 73.5% for 95thpercentile.

    In the future, we will implement an overload management scheme in the proposed system.Moreover, we will provide a distributed form of the proposed scheme for distributed server applications.

    Funding Statement:The authors received no specific funding for this study.

    Conflicts of Interest:The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to report regarding the present study.

    纵有疾风起免费观看全集完整版| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 国产成人av教育| aaaaa片日本免费| 99热网站在线观看| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 高清av免费在线| 人人澡人人妻人| 91精品国产国语对白视频| 成人精品一区二区免费| 日日夜夜操网爽| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 久久精品亚洲精品国产色婷小说| 中文字幕精品免费在线观看视频| 自线自在国产av| 日本黄色日本黄色录像| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 久久毛片免费看一区二区三区| 在线观看免费视频日本深夜| 不卡一级毛片| 精品少妇黑人巨大在线播放| 日韩有码中文字幕| 精品国产国语对白av| 久久久久久人人人人人| 久久亚洲精品不卡| www.自偷自拍.com| 久久亚洲真实| 国产精品影院久久| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 欧美老熟妇乱子伦牲交| 如日韩欧美国产精品一区二区三区| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 9热在线视频观看99| 欧美在线黄色| 亚洲一区二区三区欧美精品| 天堂8中文在线网| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽 | 午夜老司机福利片| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 美女主播在线视频| 国产麻豆69| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 久久久精品区二区三区| 国产一区二区三区综合在线观看| 一进一出抽搐动态| 精品高清国产在线一区| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 国产真人三级小视频在线观看| 国产亚洲精品第一综合不卡| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 成人国产av品久久久| 国产精品免费视频内射| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 激情在线观看视频在线高清 | 精品亚洲乱码少妇综合久久| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 久久久久久亚洲精品国产蜜桃av| 精品福利观看| 精品一品国产午夜福利视频| 两性夫妻黄色片| 91老司机精品| 亚洲精品在线美女| 国产一区二区三区在线臀色熟女 | 香蕉国产在线看| 最新美女视频免费是黄的| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 色综合婷婷激情| 亚洲伊人色综图| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 香蕉久久夜色| 在线观看免费视频网站a站| av网站免费在线观看视频| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 十八禁网站免费在线| 99精品久久久久人妻精品| 啦啦啦视频在线资源免费观看| 自线自在国产av| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 亚洲欧美色中文字幕在线| 久久99一区二区三区| 午夜久久久在线观看| 久热爱精品视频在线9| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片| 欧美 亚洲 国产 日韩一| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 在线观看免费日韩欧美大片| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 一区福利在线观看| 亚洲天堂av无毛| 中文字幕av电影在线播放| 亚洲精品在线观看二区| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 成人三级做爰电影| 美女视频免费永久观看网站| 五月开心婷婷网| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 日韩免费高清中文字幕av| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 69av精品久久久久久 | 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 超碰97精品在线观看| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| 1024香蕉在线观看| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 亚洲熟女精品中文字幕| 美女扒开内裤让男人捅视频| 久久精品国产综合久久久| 一边摸一边做爽爽视频免费| 色在线成人网| 久久久水蜜桃国产精品网| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 最新在线观看一区二区三区| 久久青草综合色| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 国产又色又爽无遮挡免费看| av网站免费在线观看视频| 两个人看的免费小视频| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| 欧美久久黑人一区二区| 在线观看人妻少妇| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 免费女性裸体啪啪无遮挡网站| 天堂中文最新版在线下载| 国产精品 欧美亚洲| 国产无遮挡羞羞视频在线观看| 大香蕉久久网| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 亚洲熟女毛片儿| 大香蕉久久网| www.熟女人妻精品国产| 午夜视频精品福利| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| av网站在线播放免费| 欧美成人午夜精品| 国产欧美亚洲国产| 午夜成年电影在线免费观看| www.自偷自拍.com| 男女边摸边吃奶| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 日本五十路高清| 高清黄色对白视频在线免费看| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 亚洲专区中文字幕在线| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 王馨瑶露胸无遮挡在线观看| 99re在线观看精品视频| 视频区图区小说| 女性被躁到高潮视频| 美女高潮喷水抽搐中文字幕| 狂野欧美激情性xxxx| 一级a爱视频在线免费观看| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 操美女的视频在线观看| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 精品亚洲成国产av| 欧美日韩视频精品一区| 欧美国产精品va在线观看不卡| 亚洲第一青青草原| 精品欧美一区二区三区在线| av不卡在线播放| 不卡一级毛片| 高清av免费在线| 久久人妻av系列| 高清欧美精品videossex| 18禁观看日本| 成人免费观看视频高清| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 黄色毛片三级朝国网站| 97在线人人人人妻| 亚洲av日韩精品久久久久久密| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯 | 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 亚洲av成人一区二区三| 国产精品电影一区二区三区 | www日本在线高清视频| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 男女下面插进去视频免费观看| 制服诱惑二区| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 欧美日韩精品网址| 精品人妻在线不人妻| 一二三四社区在线视频社区8| 男女免费视频国产| 国产区一区二久久| 亚洲国产欧美网| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 久久久国产精品麻豆| 一区二区av电影网| 在线观看免费高清a一片| 欧美日韩亚洲高清精品| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 两性夫妻黄色片| 淫妇啪啪啪对白视频| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 国产片内射在线| 日韩制服丝袜自拍偷拍| 又大又爽又粗| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 成人影院久久| 亚洲国产看品久久| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽 | 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 免费观看人在逋| 9色porny在线观看| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 国产成人欧美在线观看 | 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 欧美大码av| 免费看a级黄色片| 免费人妻精品一区二区三区视频| 欧美精品啪啪一区二区三区| 19禁男女啪啪无遮挡网站| 久久久国产一区二区| 狠狠精品人妻久久久久久综合| 亚洲精华国产精华精| 精品高清国产在线一区| 精品人妻熟女毛片av久久网站| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 久久性视频一级片| 免费日韩欧美在线观看| 国产av一区二区精品久久| 亚洲熟妇熟女久久| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线 | 国产精品久久久av美女十八| 肉色欧美久久久久久久蜜桃| 一本色道久久久久久精品综合| 五月天丁香电影| 欧美黑人精品巨大| 久久九九热精品免费| 日日夜夜操网爽| 老熟女久久久| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 老司机午夜福利在线观看视频 | 亚洲成人国产一区在线观看| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 丝瓜视频免费看黄片| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 成年人午夜在线观看视频| 人人妻人人澡人人爽人人夜夜| 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 天天躁夜夜躁狠狠躁躁| 国产熟女午夜一区二区三区| 一区二区三区激情视频| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av | videos熟女内射| 中文字幕人妻熟女乱码| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 电影成人av| 丰满少妇做爰视频| 午夜福利在线免费观看网站| 国产1区2区3区精品| 18禁国产床啪视频网站| 正在播放国产对白刺激| 久热这里只有精品99| 亚洲免费av在线视频| 免费在线观看影片大全网站| 国产av又大| 黑人巨大精品欧美一区二区mp4| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 一级毛片精品| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 精品少妇久久久久久888优播| 久久久欧美国产精品| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 久久精品国产a三级三级三级| 香蕉国产在线看| 9热在线视频观看99| 中文字幕另类日韩欧美亚洲嫩草| 亚洲午夜理论影院| 免费高清在线观看日韩| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 怎么达到女性高潮| 捣出白浆h1v1| 色视频在线一区二区三区| 国产精品国产av在线观看| 亚洲综合色网址| videos熟女内射| 视频区图区小说| 老汉色∧v一级毛片| 超色免费av| 激情在线观看视频在线高清 | 亚洲第一欧美日韩一区二区三区 | 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 另类精品久久| 欧美乱妇无乱码| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| av网站免费在线观看视频| 国产精品久久久久成人av| 91成年电影在线观看| 亚洲精品久久午夜乱码| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕 | 婷婷成人精品国产| 久久九九热精品免费| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 久久精品亚洲熟妇少妇任你| 在线看a的网站| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| www日本在线高清视频| 91av网站免费观看| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 丝袜美腿诱惑在线| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲 | 乱人伦中国视频| 国产精品美女特级片免费视频播放器 | 91成人精品电影| 人人妻人人澡人人看| 12—13女人毛片做爰片一| 国产色视频综合| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 国产精品久久久久久精品古装| 丝袜人妻中文字幕| 麻豆乱淫一区二区| 91国产中文字幕| 亚洲中文字幕日韩| tocl精华| 午夜精品国产一区二区电影| 一区二区av电影网| videos熟女内射| e午夜精品久久久久久久| 日韩欧美国产一区二区入口| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 亚洲伊人色综图| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| videos熟女内射| 桃花免费在线播放| 天天躁狠狠躁夜夜躁狠狠躁| 亚洲综合色网址| 美女午夜性视频免费| 自拍欧美九色日韩亚洲蝌蚪91| 一个人免费看片子| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 女警被强在线播放| 亚洲少妇的诱惑av| 久久精品国产99精品国产亚洲性色 | 午夜福利免费观看在线| 搡老熟女国产l中国老女人| 露出奶头的视频| 亚洲av片天天在线观看| 免费观看人在逋| 欧美人与性动交α欧美软件| 人成视频在线观看免费观看| 精品福利观看| 桃红色精品国产亚洲av| 999精品在线视频| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 欧美日韩黄片免| 成人黄色视频免费在线看| 悠悠久久av| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 成人av一区二区三区在线看| 精品一区二区三区四区五区乱码| 极品少妇高潮喷水抽搐| 精品久久蜜臀av无| 国产高清激情床上av| 高清在线国产一区| 国产伦理片在线播放av一区| 国精品久久久久久国模美| 成人免费观看视频高清| 亚洲专区字幕在线| av网站免费在线观看视频| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 一级,二级,三级黄色视频| 欧美精品亚洲一区二区| 国产精品成人在线| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 亚洲精品久久成人aⅴ小说| av一本久久久久| 国产不卡av网站在线观看| av天堂久久9| 99精品欧美一区二区三区四区| 一级毛片女人18水好多| 露出奶头的视频| 一本综合久久免费| 亚洲精品粉嫩美女一区| 老司机福利观看| 中文亚洲av片在线观看爽 | 欧美精品一区二区大全| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在| 汤姆久久久久久久影院中文字幕| 亚洲精品国产区一区二| 国产国语露脸激情在线看| 国产男靠女视频免费网站| av又黄又爽大尺度在线免费看| 亚洲国产看品久久| 亚洲精品国产色婷婷电影| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 黄色怎么调成土黄色| 日韩熟女老妇一区二区性免费视频| 欧美日韩国产mv在线观看视频| 精品国产乱码久久久久久男人| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 精品国产亚洲在线| 国产精品秋霞免费鲁丝片| 新久久久久国产一级毛片| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区 | 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 久久国产精品男人的天堂亚洲| 国产精品久久电影中文字幕 | 亚洲av电影在线进入| 亚洲专区字幕在线| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 久久久久久免费高清国产稀缺| 国产欧美日韩综合在线一区二区| 波多野结衣av一区二区av| 久久久国产一区二区| 亚洲视频免费观看视频| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人 | 亚洲黑人精品在线| 天堂俺去俺来也www色官网| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 国产日韩欧美亚洲二区| 夫妻午夜视频| 国产在线视频一区二区| 久久 成人 亚洲| 午夜福利,免费看| 国产99久久九九免费精品| 日韩三级视频一区二区三区| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 日本a在线网址| 亚洲五月色婷婷综合| 少妇精品久久久久久久| 精品国产一区二区久久| 在线观看一区二区三区激情| av一本久久久久| 欧美日本中文国产一区发布| 成人永久免费在线观看视频 | 午夜视频精品福利| 午夜老司机福利片| 精品视频人人做人人爽| 午夜免费鲁丝| 香蕉丝袜av| 欧美日韩精品网址| 亚洲一卡2卡3卡4卡5卡精品中文| 精品亚洲成国产av| 成人三级做爰电影| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 热re99久久国产66热| 久久精品国产亚洲av高清一级| 精品少妇一区二区三区视频日本电影| 99热国产这里只有精品6| 亚洲国产毛片av蜜桃av| 91大片在线观看| videosex国产| 9热在线视频观看99| 久久午夜亚洲精品久久| 色在线成人网| 久久影院123| 女性生殖器流出的白浆| 激情在线观看视频在线高清 | 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 俄罗斯特黄特色一大片| 亚洲欧美精品综合一区二区三区| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3 | 91av网站免费观看| 国产精品熟女久久久久浪| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 久久久精品94久久精品| 精品福利观看| 麻豆av在线久日| 在线 av 中文字幕| 18禁美女被吸乳视频| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 岛国毛片在线播放| 啦啦啦中文免费视频观看日本| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一出视频| 性高湖久久久久久久久免费观看| 9191精品国产免费久久| 国产不卡一卡二| 国产激情久久老熟女| 日韩视频在线欧美| 国产亚洲欧美精品永久| 精品国产一区二区三区四区第35| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看 | 久久精品国产综合久久久| 亚洲国产欧美一区二区综合| 日韩免费av在线播放| 久久久国产一区二区| 国产在线视频一区二区| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 男人操女人黄网站| 欧美av亚洲av综合av国产av| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看 | 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 女人被躁到高潮嗷嗷叫费观| 午夜激情久久久久久久| 十八禁网站网址无遮挡| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 免费少妇av软件| 久久人人爽av亚洲精品天堂| 久久人妻熟女aⅴ| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 国产成人免费观看mmmm| 欧美激情 高清一区二区三区| 在线观看舔阴道视频| a在线观看视频网站| 亚洲伊人色综图| 成人影院久久| 欧美日韩亚洲综合一区二区三区_| 欧美成人午夜精品| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 国产精品二区激情视频| 色婷婷久久久亚洲欧美| 在线观看免费午夜福利视频| 一区二区日韩欧美中文字幕| 丝袜美足系列| 交换朋友夫妻互换小说| 999久久久国产精品视频| www.精华液| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 十分钟在线观看高清视频www| 人妻一区二区av| 欧美性长视频在线观看| 波多野结衣一区麻豆| 男女无遮挡免费网站观看| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 三上悠亚av全集在线观看| 2018国产大陆天天弄谢| 欧美日韩中文字幕国产精品一区二区三区 | 日本欧美视频一区| 久久99热这里只频精品6学生| 大型av网站在线播放| 91字幕亚洲| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 亚洲性夜色夜夜综合| 精品国产亚洲在线| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 国产三级黄色录像| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 在线av久久热| 成年人免费黄色播放视频| 午夜激情av网站| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 亚洲男人天堂网一区| 女性被躁到高潮视频| bbb黄色大片| 久久久欧美国产精品| 国产在视频线精品| 午夜精品久久久久久毛片777| 日韩欧美一区视频在线观看| 亚洲欧美一区二区三区久久| 国产精品成人在线| 久久狼人影院| 成人精品一区二区免费| 超色免费av| 巨乳人妻的诱惑在线观看| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频 | 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 久久午夜综合久久蜜桃| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 精品国产亚洲在线| 大片电影免费在线观看免费| 90打野战视频偷拍视频| 亚洲精品在线美女| 国产精品免费大片| 亚洲人成77777在线视频| 热re99久久精品国产66热6| 亚洲精品国产一区二区精华液| 老司机影院毛片| 蜜桃国产av成人99| 欧美国产精品一级二级三级| 十八禁网站免费在线| 大片免费播放器 马上看| 亚洲一码二码三码区别大吗| 极品人妻少妇av视频| 成人国产一区最新在线观看| 欧美黄色淫秽网站| 欧美变态另类bdsm刘玥| 亚洲情色 制服丝袜| 视频区欧美日本亚洲| 757午夜福利合集在线观看| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 久久久久久久大尺度免费视频| 成人国产av品久久久| 亚洲av日韩在线播放| 午夜激情av网站| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品|