[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-21379?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17817350#comment-17817350
]
Vladislav Pyatkov commented on IGNITE-21379:
--------------------------------------------
> Is this a single op latency in the table?
The total duration of 10M operations is shown in the table. One operation
contains getting two read locks and two read unlocks.
The test ran several times; this duration is after warmup.
> Test scenario description is not clear to me.
I attached the test.
> That is counter test?
The last row in the table is matched for the 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
> Attachments: BusyLockTest.java
>
>
> 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)
