[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 John Engebretson changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RESOLVED|VERIFIED --- Comment #21 from John Engebretson --- This change reached production and decreased the cost of javax.servlet.jsp.el.ImplicitObjectELResolver.getValue() by approximately 80%. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #20 from John Engebretson --- Thank you to everyone involved! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 Mark Thomas changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|NEW |RESOLVED --- Comment #19 from Mark Thomas --- Fixed in: - 11.0.x for 11.0.0-M12 onwards - 10.1.x for 10.1.14 onwards - 9.0.x for 9.0.81 onwards - 8.5.x for 8.5.94 onwards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #18 from Mark Thomas --- (In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #17) > If you are going to perform a lookup, make sure you get the best bang for > your buck. +1 I'll put together a patch along those lines. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #17 from Christopher Schultz ---
Fair enough, but if we are going to try to squeeze as much performance out of
this, then the correct process is with delegated dispatch:
enum Scope {
applicationScope(0) {
public Object getScopedValue(ELContext ctx, Object base, Object property) {
PageContext page = (PageContext) context
.getContext(JspContext.class);
context.setPropertyResolved(base, property);
return ScopeManager.get(page).getApplicationScope();
}
},
cookie(1) {
public Object getScopedValue(ELContext ctx, Object base, Object property) {
PageContext page = (PageContext) context
.getContext(JspContext.class);
context.setPropertyResolved(base, property);
return ScopeManager.get(page).getCookie();
}
},
...
}
Then:
Scope scope = Scope.valueOf(property);
if(null != scope) {
return scope.getScopedValue(ctx, base, property);
} else {
return null;
}
If you are going to perform a lookup, make sure you get the best bang for your
buck.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #16 from Anurag Dubey ---
(In reply to Christopher Schultz from comment #14)
> The fromLookupAndSwitch technique seems to be implemented in an awkward way.
> Why bother converting from String -> Enum and then using a switch on the
> enum, instead of just (a) implementing a getScopeNumber() method in each
> enum instance or (b) just using convenient ordinal values which match the
> value you actually want?
>
> I would think this would be the best implementation if you wanted to use
> Enums:
>
> enum Scope {
> applicationScope(0), cookie(1), header(2), ...
>
> public static int fromLookupAndSwitch(String scope) {
> Scope scope = lookupMap.get(scope);
> if(null == scope) {
> } else {
> return scope.ordinal();
> }
> }
> }
>
> I understand that this test is no longer "from lookup and switch" but I
> decided to keep the method name the same.
>
> I guess the point is if you use a hash, you don't have to use a switch at
> all.
That is to mimic the outer switch which anyways applies in the getValue method.
ref-
https://github.com/anuragdy/tomcat/blob/4257836d0930c853f862dfe5f0aad4c24cefec31/java/javax/servlet/jsp/el/ImplicitObjectELResolver.java#L90
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #15 from Christopher Schultz --- ... also what about Scope.valueOf(scopeName) and then you don't have to implement your own map? It's possible that a manually-constructed Map would be faster than the default mapping provided by java.lang.Enum, but there is less code required. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #14 from Christopher Schultz ---
The fromLookupAndSwitch technique seems to be implemented in an awkward way.
Why bother converting from String -> Enum and then using a switch on the enum,
instead of just (a) implementing a getScopeNumber() method in each enum
instance or (b) just using convenient ordinal values which match the value you
actually want?
I would think this would be the best implementation if you wanted to use Enums:
enum Scope {
applicationScope(0), cookie(1), header(2), ...
public static int fromLookupAndSwitch(String scope) {
Scope scope = lookupMap.get(scope);
if(null == scope) {
} else {
return scope.ordinal();
}
}
}
I understand that this test is no longer "from lookup and switch" but I decided
to keep the method name the same.
I guess the point is if you use a hash, you don't have to use a switch at all.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #13 from Anurag Dubey --- (In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #11) > (In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #8) > > The alternative approach is not faster. The test that showed it was was not > > a fair test. I will be applying a variation of the original patch. > > To be clear the original patch/approach from John Engebretson is faster than > alternative patch/approach proposed by Anurag Dubey. > > Both are faster than binary search. I agree that the earlier test shared for Alternative enum lookup approach didn't involve a switch lookup. I have created another test involving switch after the enum lookup, which looks faster than other 2, thoughts on this ? BenchmarkMode Cnt Score Error Units LookupVsSwitch.binarySearch thrpt 15 12.175 ? 0.472 ops/us LookupVsSwitch.fromLookupAndSwitch thrpt 15 19.759 ? 0.878 ops/us LookupVsSwitch.fromSwitch thrpt 15 15.106 ? 0.520 ops/us -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #12 from Anurag Dubey --- Created attachment 39051 --> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39051&action=edit Alternative enum lookup approach JMH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #11 from Mark Thomas --- (In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #8) > The alternative approach is not faster. The test that showed it was was not > a fair test. I will be applying a variation of the original patch. To be clear the original patch/approach from John Engebretson is faster than alternative patch/approach proposed by Anurag Dubey. Both are faster than binary search. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #10 from Christopher Schultz --- This test seems to show that there is indeed a speed improvement by using a switch statement instead of a binary search, somewhere in the 30% range, and it seems consistent. I didn't get the kind of speedup that John sees, but that may be due to environmental differences. Scope lookups probably occur many times in a given JSP, so this can probably add-up, especially when seeing a report that this is a hot-spot. In order to get a good randomized test where the JIT and/or CPU were not cheating by discovering that we were e.g. always searching for "applicationScope", I used java.util.Random.nextInt to randomly-choose one of the scopes for each test. I did not check to see how much of the testing time was taken up by the Random.nextInt invocation, but both compared methods are using the same random technique. I'm happy to receive a critique of my JMH test if it does not show what I think it shows. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #9 from Christopher Schultz --- Created attachment 39050 --> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=39050&action=edit JMH test to compare binarySearch to switch(scope) # JMH version: 1.37 # VM version: JDK 21, OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM, 21+35-2513 # VM invoker: /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-21.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java # VM options: # Blackhole mode: compiler (auto-detected, use -Djmh.blackhole.autoDetect=false to disable) # Warmup: 5 iterations, 5 s each # Measurement: 5 iterations, 5 s each # Timeout: 10 min per iteration # Threads: 1 thread, will synchronize iterations # Benchmark mode: Throughput, ops/time # Benchmark: org.sample.ScopeLookup.binarySearch # Run progress: 0.00% complete, ETA 00:01:40 # Fork: 1 of 1 # Warmup Iteration 1: 32873899.937 ops/s # Warmup Iteration 2: 32037578.845 ops/s # Warmup Iteration 3: 32101040.458 ops/s # Warmup Iteration 4: 32619813.449 ops/s # Warmup Iteration 5: 32459923.794 ops/s Iteration 1: 32878096.534 ops/s Iteration 2: 32782993.884 ops/s Iteration 3: 32802020.501 ops/s Iteration 4: 32357564.918 ops/s Iteration 5: 34414429.950 ops/s Result "org.sample.ScopeLookup.binarySearch": 33047021.158 ±(99.9%) 3046287.685 ops/s [Average] (min, avg, max) = (32357564.918, 33047021.158, 34414429.950), stdev = 79.238 CI (99.9%): [3733.472, 36093308.843] (assumes normal distribution) # JMH version: 1.37 # VM version: JDK 21, OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM, 21+35-2513 # VM invoker: /Library/Java/JavaVirtualMachines/jdk-21.jdk/Contents/Home/bin/java # VM options: # Blackhole mode: compiler (auto-detected, use -Djmh.blackhole.autoDetect=false to disable) # Warmup: 5 iterations, 5 s each # Measurement: 5 iterations, 5 s each # Timeout: 10 min per iteration # Threads: 1 thread, will synchronize iterations # Benchmark mode: Throughput, ops/time # Benchmark: org.sample.ScopeLookup.caseSearch # Run progress: 50.00% complete, ETA 00:00:50 # Fork: 1 of 1 # Warmup Iteration 1: 45942620.330 ops/s # Warmup Iteration 2: 43150765.515 ops/s # Warmup Iteration 3: 44932581.558 ops/s # Warmup Iteration 4: 45360554.270 ops/s # Warmup Iteration 5: 43506970.095 ops/s Iteration 1: 44393187.971 ops/s Iteration 2: 46287069.970 ops/s Iteration 3: 46461809.778 ops/s Iteration 4: 45619371.053 ops/s Iteration 5: 46167433.097 ops/s Result "org.sample.ScopeLookup.caseSearch": 45785774.374 ±(99.9%) 3233722.237 ops/s [Average] (min, avg, max) = (44393187.971, 45785774.374, 46461809.778), stdev = 839787.396 CI (99.9%): [42552052.137, 49019496.610] (assumes normal distribution) # Run complete. Total time: 00:01:41 REMEMBER: The numbers below are just data. To gain reusable insights, you need to follow up on why the numbers are the way they are. Use profilers (see -prof, -lprof), design factorial experiments, perform baseline and negative tests that provide experimental control, make sure the benchmarking environment is safe on JVM/OS/HW level, ask for reviews from the domain experts. Do not assume the numbers tell you what you want them to tell. NOTE: Current JVM experimentally supports Compiler Blackholes, and they are in use. Please exercise extra caution when trusting the results, look into the generated code to check the benchmark still works, and factor in a small probability of new VM bugs. Additionally, while comparisons between different JVMs are already problematic, the performance difference caused by different Blackhole modes can be very significant. Please make sure you use the consistent Blackhole mode for comparisons. Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units ScopeLookup.binarySearch thrpt5 33047021.158 ± 3046287.685 ops/s ScopeLookup.caseSearchthrpt5 45785774.374 ± 3233722.237 ops/s -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #8 from Mark Thomas --- The alternative approach is not faster. The test that showed it was was not a fair test. I will be applying a variation of the original patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #7 from Anurag Dubey --- Hey Christopher Schultz, can you help out with the Pull Request i raised. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #6 from John Engebretson --- Anurag's solution is clearly faster than mine, I like it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #5 from Anurag Dubey --- Create Pull Request for the proposed change, have also shared the performance comparison for Old vs Switch implementation vs Hashmap implementation - https://github.com/apache/tomcat/pull/666 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 Anurag Dubey changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anura...@amazon.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #4 from John Engebretson --- Created attachment 38938 --> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38938&action=edit decompiled reproducer -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080
--- Comment #3 from John Engebretson ---
I used javap to examine the bytecode of the reproducer - the full output is
attached but the critical portion is below. In short, it hashes each constant
and switches based on that hash.
This is superior to binary search because it's constant-time and superior to
HashMap because there is no object instantiation/traversal.
protected void runNewTest();
descriptor: ()V
flags: (0x0004) ACC_PROTECTED
Code:
stack=5, locals=5, args_size=1
0: iconst_m1
1: istore_1
2: iconst_0
3: istore_2
4: goto 363
7: getstatic #40 // Field
TEST_SCOPES:[Ljava/lang/String;
10: iload_2
11: aaload
12: astore_3
13: aload_3
14: dup
15: astore4
17: invokevirtual #62 // Method
java/lang/String.hashCode:()I
20: lookupswitch { // 11
-1354757532: 120
-1221270899: 133
-697829026: 146
-272077475: 159
-214877152: 172
-10806556: 185
106436749: 198
872295685: 211
889144335: 224
1291689221: 237
2073857551: 250
default: 324
}
120: aload 4
122: ldc #18 // String cookie
124: invokevirtual #66 // Method
java/lang/String.equals:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Z
127: ifne 294
130: goto 324
133: aload 4
135: ldc #20 // String header
137: invokevirtual #66 // Method
java/lang/String.equals:(Ljava/lang/Object;)Z
140: ifne 283
143: goto 324
146: aload 4
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Schultz --- I haven't studied what the Java compiler does with switch(String) statements, but I believe that numeric-based switch statements have two flavors: lookup vs table. One of them is faster but is only possible under certain circumstances. Introducing Strings likely complicates things further. If we just need to convert a String value into a number, there's a data structure pretty much purpose-built for that: a hash table. What if you implement the lookup as HashMap.get()? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
[Bug 67080] ImplicitObjectELResolverImpl.getValue() is slow
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67080 John Engebretson changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jeng...@amazon.com --- Comment #1 from John Engebretson --- Created attachment 38935 --> https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=38935&action=edit Reproducer & speed test -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@tomcat.apache.org
