[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10015?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13830600#comment-13830600
 ] 

Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-10015:
---------------------------------------

Yeah, I'm coming around to that. :)
We have to figure out how to do that without excessive synchronization. At the 
minimum we have to guarantee that nobody is currently using the readers in 
question before we retire them.
Alternatively we wait for all running scanners to finish. How do we do that?


> Major performance improvement: Avoid synchronization in StoreScanner
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-10015
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10015
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Lars Hofhansl
>            Assignee: Lars Hofhansl
>             Fix For: 0.98.0, 0.96.1, 0.94.15
>
>         Attachments: 10015-0.94-v2.txt, 10015-0.94-v3.txt, 10015-0.94-v4.txt, 
> 10015-0.94-withtest.txt, 10015-0.94.txt, 10015-trunk-v2.txt, 
> 10015-trunk-v3.txt, 10015-trunk-v4.txt, 10015-trunk-v4.txt, 
> 10015-trunk-v4.txt, 10015-trunk.txt, TestLoad.java
>
>
> Did some more profiling (this time with a sampling profiler) and 
> StoreScanner.peek() showed up a lot in the samples. At first that was 
> surprising, but peek is synchronized, so it seems a lot of the sync'ing cost 
> is eaten there.
> It seems the only reason we have to synchronize all these methods is because 
> a concurrent flush or compaction can change the scanner stack, other than 
> that only a single thread should access a StoreScanner at any given time.
> So replaced updateReaders() with some code that just indicates to the scanner 
> that the readers should be updated and then make it the using thread's 
> responsibility to do the work.
> The perf improvement from this is staggering. I am seeing somewhere around 3x 
> scan performance improvement across all scenarios.
> Now, the hard part is to reason about whether this is 100% correct. I ran 
> TestAtomicOperation and TestAcidGuarantees a few times in a loop, all still 
> pass.
> Will attach a sample patch.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)

Reply via email to