> On 29 Jul 2016, at 18:51, 'Chris Conroy' via Netty discussions > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:26 AM, ‘Norman Maurer’ via Netty discussions > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > Comments inside.. > >> On 29 Jul 2016, at 01:10, 'Chris Conroy' via Netty discussions >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Ping: What do you think about a global recycler instead of many thread-local >> recyclers? >> >> > Im not sure this can be done without too much overhead. But if you want to > cook up a PR and show it with benchmarks I would be interested for sure :) > > > > > > >> Also, can you provide some more context on the rationale behind the >> recycler? Especially with the PooledByteBufAllocator, NIO allocations should >> be very cheap, so why bother to reuse the buffers? >> >> > Its because of object allocation. It basically reuses the “ByteBuf” container > object (non the actual memory here). > > > The ByteBuf objects do pin the NIO memory with an unpooled allocator. Are you > saying that this is not the case in the pooled allocator? > > What you mean here ? In the PooledByteBufAllocator the memory is “pooled” separately from the ByteBuf instance.
> Object allocation is always very cheap. Garbage collection in the eden space > is incredibly cheap, and most buffers are short-lived. I suspect that this > may be a premature micro-optimization. I see no difference in JVM pause time > or GC run rates when I disable the recycler completely. > > In the past I saw issues because of heavy object allocation (even for this short-lived objects). If you not have this issue you could just disable the recycler. > > > > Im working on another fix for the problem you see. And you also may be > interested in these: > Allow to limit the maximum number of WeakOrderQueue instances per The… > <https://github.com/netty/netty/pull/5592> > Introduce allocation / pooling ratio in Recycler > <https://github.com/netty/netty/pull/5594> > Set Recycler DEFAULT_INITIAL_MAX_CAPACITY to a more sane value > <https://github.com/netty/netty/pull/5589> > Ensure shared capacity is updated correctly when WeakOrderQueue is co… > <https://github.com/netty/netty/pull/5577> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Netty discussions" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/netty/CA%2B%3DgZKAKQjw%3DPcqWoYFtKznk6RMtnCDu2G4FP9VAiAug76%2BmTw%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/netty/CA%2B%3DgZKAKQjw%3DPcqWoYFtKznk6RMtnCDu2G4FP9VAiAug76%2BmTw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Netty discussions" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/netty/D6A36497-584B-4F8A-9365-9C21E538DBD2%40googlemail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
