On 11/5/13 11:26 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: > Hehe, right. > > I looked a bit more today and LongAdder is only a part of the > solution. The stat computation still needs to lock to get acces to > previous values (N -> N+1). Basically the gain wouldn't be as > important as I thought :(.
Right, but I think your original idea of maintaining a pool of instances (fewer that one per thread) to be periodically aggregated is a good one. See below. > > As I said before we'll wait a bit to gather feedbacks, if it blocks > I'll come back trying to find + propose a solution. > > Thanks in all cases for your answers! A workaround that I have started playing with (partly for other benchmarking reasons) might be to actually use a pool for the stats objects that the monitoring threads use. Using a pool would allow you to monitor and tune the parameters. We now have (well, once the VOTE in progress completes :) a decently performing pool implementation. The tricky bit is locking the instances during aggregation. One way to handle this would be to have the factory's passivate method and the aggregation thread contend for locks on the pooled stats instances. The only contention would be when aggregation is copying individual instances and contention would be with at most one client thread (waiting to proceed in passivate). Phil > Romain Manni-Bucau > Twitter: @rmannibucau > Blog: http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com/ > LinkedIn: http://fr.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau > Github: https://github.com/rmannibucau > > > > 2013/11/5 Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com>: >> On 11/5/13 9:57 AM, Romain Manni-Bucau wrote: >>> @Phil: hmm can be but the framework would create its own overhead which >>> would be avoided with a dedicated solution, no? Well thought gain was great >>> for small investment but ok to postpone it >> As I said, patches welcome. Go for it. My point about the >> framework was that when you actually get this implemented inside, >> e.g. SummaryStatistics, you will have built a mini-framework. >> Whatever overhead it has, it will have ;) >> >> >> Phil >> >> >>> Le 5 nov. 2013 18:54, "Romain Manni-Bucau" <rmannibu...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>> >>>> Well I didnt test sirona in prod but when using jamon (same kind of >>>> framework) locks were creating a serious overhead on some benches. Not the >>>> most important but enough to try to solve it. >>>> >>>> That said we are not yet in 1.0 so Im ok to wait for more serious >>>> feedbacks if you think it is better >>>> Le 5 nov. 2013 18:48, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>> >>>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Romain Manni-Bucau >>>>> <rmannibu...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Oh sorry, that's what I said early, in a real app no or not enough to >>>>> be an >>>>>> issue buy on simple apps or very high thrououtput apps yes. >>>>>> Le 5 nov. 2013 07:00, "Ted Dunning" <ted.dunn...@gmail.com> a écrit : >>>>>> >>>>>>> That isn't what I meant. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you really think that more than one metric has to update >>>>> (increment, >>>>>>> say) at precisely the same time? >>>>>>> >>>>> I realize that is what you said. Do you have any serious examples where >>>>> metrics have to be updated all or nothing? >>>>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
