Adar Dembo has posted comments on this change. Change subject: process_memory: go back to non-incremental tracking ......................................................................
Patch Set 1: (3 comments) http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/6915/1//COMMIT_MSG Commit Message: PS1, Line 34: noticeably better > takes a long time to run, so I didn't wait for the whole thing to finish :) Thanks. It looks like the difference between the two implementations is about 1-2% CPU time. Am I reading the graph correctly? http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/#/c/6915/1/src/kudu/util/process_memory.cc File src/kudu/util/process_memory.cc: Line 191: const int64_t kReadIntervalMicros = 50000; > figured that we would have a hard time using more than a few MB in 50ms, an I thought we could consume more than that, even in such a short period of time. Like, ballpark 1M inserts/s, so 50K for every 50ms. With a 1K row size, that's 50 MB. Do you think that's achievable? PS1, Line 198: GetMonoTimeMicros() > I wanted to re-fetch time, so that we guarantee the sleep _between_ calls i Makes sense. Could you add a comment explaining this, so no one "optimizes away" the second call? -- To view, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/6915 To unsubscribe, visit http://gerrit.cloudera.org:8080/settings Gerrit-MessageType: comment Gerrit-Change-Id: I8823028de3ea260f1450d9bf34af2dc5a794b206 Gerrit-PatchSet: 1 Gerrit-Project: kudu Gerrit-Branch: master Gerrit-Owner: Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Adar Dembo <[email protected]> Gerrit-Reviewer: Kudu Jenkins Gerrit-Reviewer: Todd Lipcon <[email protected]> Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
