[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1121?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14876937#comment-14876937
]
Remko Popma commented on LOG4J2-1121:
-------------------------------------
Took a look at the branch, thanks! I think this line in
LoggerConfig.waitForCompletion:
{code}
// while (counter.get() > 0) { // current master code
while (counter.compareAndSet(0, Integer.MIN_VALUE)) { // true if success (was
zero)
{code}
should be
{code}
while (!counter.compareAndSet(0, Integer.MIN_VALUE)) {
{code}
Not sure if necessary, should we add an additional check and return the counter
is already less than zero (in case waitForCompletion is called multiple times)?
> LoggerConfig performance improvement: remove waitForCompletion and associated
> fields
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LOG4J2-1121
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LOG4J2-1121
> Project: Log4j 2
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Core
> Affects Versions: 2.3
> Reporter: Remko Popma
>
> This ticket follows up on LOG4J2-1120. Out of the three changes identified in
> LOG4J2-1120, only two could be implemented in time for the 2.4 release.
> This ticket tracks the remaining work for the third change:
> * Since {{clearAppenders()}} is only called after all appenders have been
> stopped, {{waitForCompletion()}} may no longer be necessary (unless I am
> missing something here). If so, the {{shutdownLock}}, {{shutdown}} and
> {{counter}} fields can be removed. Not incrementing the atomic counters with
> every event in the hot path should give better performance.
> LOG4J2-1120 shows benchmark results that support this.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
