[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14331?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15331015#comment-15331015
 ] 

stack commented on HBASE-14331:
-------------------------------

I'd commit these [~ikeda]

> a single callQueue related improvements
> ---------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-14331
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14331
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: IPC/RPC, Performance
>            Reporter: Hiroshi Ikeda
>            Assignee: Hiroshi Ikeda
>         Attachments: BlockingQueuesPerformanceTestApp-output.pdf, 
> BlockingQueuesPerformanceTestApp-output.txt, 
> BlockingQueuesPerformanceTestApp.java, CallQueuePerformanceTestApp.java, 
> HBASE-14331-V2.patch, HBASE-14331-V3.patch, HBASE-14331-V4.patch, 
> HBASE-14331-V5.patch, HBASE-14331-V6.patch, HBASE-14331-V6.patch, 
> HBASE-14331.patch, HBASE-14331.patch, SemaphoreBasedBlockingQueue.java, 
> SemaphoreBasedLinkedBlockingQueue.java, 
> SemaphoreBasedPriorityBlockingQueue.java
>
>
> {{LinkedBlockingQueue}} well separates locks between the {{take}} method and 
> the {{put}} method, but not between takers, and not between putters. These 
> methods are implemented to take locks at the almost beginning of their logic. 
> HBASE-11355 introduces multiple call-queues to reduce such possible 
> congestion, but I doubt that it is required to stick to {{BlockingQueue}}.
> There are the other shortcomings of using {{BlockingQueue}}. When using 
> multiple queues, since {{BlockingQueue}} blocks threads it is required to 
> prepare enough threads for each queue. It is possible that there is a queue 
> starving for threads while there is another queue where threads are idle. 
> Even if you can tune parameters to avoid such situations, the tuning is not 
> so trivial.
> I suggest using a single {{ConcurrentLinkedQueue}} with {{Semaphore}}.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to