On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 7:02 AM, Vladimir Ozerov <voze...@gridgain.com> wrote:
> As per cache - I hardly understand affected logic, so my review wouldn't > help much here. > > As per the rest changes - looks good for me. I also see garbage from NIO > and "force keys" as huge memory hotspots. The only problem is > GridCompoundFuture: > > if (futs == null) > futs = new ArrayList<>(); > > futs.add(fut); > > > Things like this are proven to be anti-pattern in terms of memory > allocations, because on the last line you effectively allocate Object[10], > while usually you will have much less child futures. We could delay > allocation of array if we store the very first child future as direct > reference. And only second added future should lead to ArrayList > allocation. This should positively affect lots operations with "compound > semantics" and single cache key involved (e.g. single puts/gets). > Vova, I couldn’t agree more. Can we try it out and see what kind of GC or performance improvement we get? > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 9:08 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> wrote: > > > No visible changes to throughput and latency on our common configuration, > > but allocation pressure reduced up to 20% in put-get benchmarks. > > > > --Yakov > > > > 2016-02-01 20:02 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org>: > > > > > Any preliminary performance numbers? > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 8:52 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhda...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Vladimir Ozerov and Alex Goncharuk, can you please take a look at PR > > and > > > > provide comments? Other reviewers are welcome, too! =) > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/422 > > > > > > > > I did some changes to decrease allocation pressure and fixed force > keys > > > > request not to be sent if rebalancing has already been successfully > > > > completed on operation's topology version. > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > > > > >
