Op Monday 18 February 2008 17:08:50 schreef mark harwood:
> >>Even though you only have two threads... how many different IndexReader
> >>instances do you have?
>
> One reader - kept open throughout.
>
> >>I think the only way to make the current version
> >>work correctly is to make whole method synchronized on this
> >>object, i.e. declare it as public synchronized, and then
> >>the synchronized(cache) occurrences can be removed.
>
> Analysing the pros and cons of such a change...
> 1) Synchronisation costs for pre-cached content on the same reader
> (hopefully the most common case) would be just as quick as it is now i.e.
> swapping a synchronised(this) for synchronised(cache).
> 2) Synchronisation for uncached content would avoid reading multiple copies
> of the same bitset (one would expect overall faster responses in this
> scenario)
> 3) However, there would be an additional synchronisation cost for threads
> using unrelated readers - a thread using an old reader with pre-cached
> content would be delayed (potentially significantly) by a thread caching new
> content on a new reader.
>
> This last one sounds a bit nasty?
Yes, that could be problematic.
But I'm afraid more detailed information will be needed before
this OOM can be solved.
Regards,
Paul Elschot
>
> Cheers
> Mark
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Paul Elschot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: java-dev@lucene.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, 18 February, 2008 3:23:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Out of memory - CachingWrappperFilter and multiple threads
>
> I think this code has been discussed before, but I can't find
> the occasion on which that happened.
>
> Actually, this code may do some things like creating two different
> caches, and as you said calling filter.bits(reader) in parallel.
>
> Creating different caches does not hurt because in the end
> one only one will survive the assignment, but it's not nice as
> different threads might synchronize on different caches
> for the first cache.get() call, and I don't know whether
> java guarantees that the cache.get() call will synchronize
> on the same cache as the cache in the cache.get()
> call in this case.
>
> Doing the filter.bits(reader) call without synchronization
> is probably on purpose: it's better not to hold any visible
> lock while calling outside an object.
>
> As it stands, I think the only way to make the current version
> work correctly is to make whole method synchronized on this
> object, i.e. declare it as public synchronized, and then
> the synchronized(cache) occurrences can be removed.
>
> It might be better to initialize the cache in the constructor,
> and then synchronize on the cache while even while
> calling filter.bits(reader). This is safe when the cache is private.
>
> Regards,
> Paul Elschot
>
>
>
> Op Monday 18 February 2008 13:50:16 schreef mark harwood:
> > I'm chasing down a bug in my application where multiple threads were
> > readingand caching the same filter (same very common term, big index) and
> > causedan Out of Memory exception when I would expect there to be plenty
> > ofmemory to spare.
> > There's a number of layers to this app to investigate (I was using
> > theXMLQueryParser and the CachedFilter tag too) but
> > CachingWrapperFilterunderpins all this stuff and I was led to this code in
> > it...
> >
> > public BitSet bits(IndexReader reader) throws IOException {
> > if (cache == null) {
> > cache = new WeakHashMap();
> > }
> >
> > synchronized (cache) { // check cache
> > BitSet cached = (BitSet) cache.get(reader);
> > if (cached != null) {
> > return cached;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > final BitSet bits = filter.bits(reader);
> >
> > synchronized (cache) { // update cache
> > cache.put(reader, bits);
> > }
> >
> > return bits;
> > }
> >
> >
> > The first observation is - why the use of"final" for the variable "bits" ?
> > Would there be anyside-effects to this?
> >
> > Perhaps more worryingly I can see that multiple threads asking for the same
> > bitset simultaneously arelikely to unnecessarily read the same data from
> > the same reader (butultimately only one bitset should end up cached). My
> > app only had 2 simultaneous threads on the same reader so I don't see how
> > that accounts for the large memory bloat I saw. In a high traffic
> > environment though, I can see multiple requests for a popular term getting
> > bottle-necked here creating the same bitset and causing an OOM error. It
> > looks like this multiple-load scenario could/should be avoided with some
> > careful synchronisation.
> >
> > Unfortunately I've been unable to reproduce my OOM problem outside of the
> > live environment so can't fully pinpoint my particular issue or the
> > solution just yet.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
