[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-21379?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17817332#comment-17817332
]
Alexey Scherbakov edited comment on IGNITE-21379 at 2/14/24 11:06 AM:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I compare two general approaches:
Is this a single op latency in the table ?
> This is a latency of 10_000_000 operations in millis
you mean total duration ?
Test scenario description is not clear to me.
That is counter test ?
was (Author: ascherbakov):
> I compare two general approaches:
Is this a single op latency in the table ?
> This is a latency of 10_000_000 operations in millis
you mean total duration ?
That is counter test ?
> Investigate whether currently used busyLocks implementation is fast enough
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: IGNITE-21379
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-21379
> Project: Ignite
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Alexander Lapin
> Assignee: Vladislav Pyatkov
> Priority: Major
> Labels: ignite-3, performance
>
> h3. Motivation
> Seems that our busyLocks (IgniteSpinBusyLock) aren't good enough from the
> performance perspective. Let's compare current implementation with common RW
> locks, CheckpointReadWriteLock, etc. Depending on the results it'll be
> required either to use faster implementation or re-consider busyLock idea
> itself because currently it brings significant performance drop. Given ticket
> is only about initial step - busyLock performance investigation.
> h3. Definition of Done
> * Prepare JMH benchmarks for busyLocks performance investigation.
> * Compare IgniteSpinBusyLock, common RW lock, CheckpointReadWriteLock, etc
> in order to understand whether IgniteSpinBusyLock is fast enough.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
