[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-10015?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13832182#comment-13832182
]
Enis Soztutar commented on HBASE-10015:
---------------------------------------
oh, ok. I missed that somehow from the above discussion. Is there a jira yet?
I can help with this.
> Replace intrinsic locking with explicit locks 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
> Labels: performance
> Attachments: 10015-0.94-lock.txt, 10015-0.94-new-sample.txt,
> 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)
