[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16555407#comment-16555407
]
Sahil Aggarwal commented on HBASE-20716:
----------------------------------------
I intend to finish it all in this tasks itself. To me ByteBufferUtils seems to
be only other class where we do this check and dispatch. Will changing the
ByteBufferUtils too be all for this task?
> Unsafe access cleanup
> ---------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-20716
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Performance
> Reporter: stack
> Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: beginner
> Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch,
> HBASE-20716.master.002.patch, HBASE-20716.master.003.patch, Screen Shot
> 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png
>
>
> We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the
> Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one
> avenue to Unsafe only.
> Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if
> access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are
> written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of
> times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe
> access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and
> then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out.
> UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to
> have the Bytes behavior pervasive.
> The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain
> removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you
> disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be
> the difference between inlining or not.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
