[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25998?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17361973#comment-17361973
]
Bharath Vissapragada commented on HBASE-25998:
----------------------------------------------
Redid the experiments with JDK-11 (to account for any latest monitor
performance enhancements) and I see similar numbers. Also, the numbers above
are for {{-t 256}} which implies heavy contention. It seems like the patch
performs well under heavy load and the gap narrows with fewer threads (which I
guess is expected), but even with very low concurrency the patch seems to out
perform the current state.
> Revisit synchronization in SyncFuture
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-25998
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-25998
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Performance, regionserver, wal
> Affects Versions: 3.0.0-alpha-1, 1.7.0, 2.5.0
> Reporter: Bharath Vissapragada
> Assignee: Bharath Vissapragada
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: monitor-overhead-1.png, monitor-overhead-2.png
>
>
> While working on HBASE-25984, I noticed some weird frames in the flame graphs
> around monitor entry exit consuming a lot of CPU cycles (see attached
> images). Noticed that the synchronization there is too coarse grained and
> sometimes unnecessary. I did a simple patch that switched to a reentrant lock
> based synchronization with condition variable rather than a busy wait and
> that showed 70-80% increased throughput in WAL PE. Seems too good to be
> true.. (more details in the comments).
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
