Thanks for the update, no need to apologize :-) Gary
On Sat, Sep 9, 2023, 6:31 PM Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry I got busy. I will they to get final changes in tomorrow or > convince myself it is ok to release without them. Apologies for the delay > > > On Sep 9, 2023, at 6:41 AM, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Phil, > > > > Where are we on a 2.12.0 release candidate? > > > > Gary > > > >> On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:33 PM Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> OK, I found the source of the performance hit. In the POOL-411 > changes, we > >> had inadvertently forced every register to acquire a write lock from the > >> keylock. I think I also finally definitively fixed the root issue > there. > >> The tricky bit about the numInterested tracking is that the counters are > >> attached to the ObjectDeques, which can be replaced. If this happens > while > >> waiting for a write lock in either register or deregister, the code can > end > >> up updating the counter on a pool that has been replaced. I added > checks > >> to trap deregistration of a null pool (should never happen) and followed > >> Sebb's suggestion to add a check for numInterested going negative. The > >> accounting setup is very efficient, but tricky to maintain. For 3.0, we > >> might consider moving numInterested tracking to a hashmap. For 2.x, I > >> think the setup is fixed now and performance is the same as earlier > >> versions. Soak tests look good. > >> > >> One last thing I would like to do before we cut 2.12.0: > >> > >> We are going to be making incompatible changes in 3.0 and I don't think > we > >> need to telegraph all of the API changes via deprecations in 2.x - most > >> notably the recent method name changes of the form s/Time/Duration. I > >> understand the rationale for these changes, but they make the 2.x code > very > >> messy with double deprecations - first from the "millis" methods and > then > >> from "Time" to "Duration." I think it would be better to keep the > existing > >> deprecations for the "millis" methods, but drop the new "Duration" ones > and > >> remove deprecations for the ones they replace. I can see the argument > that > >> it is better to tell users now, but that takes away flexibility in 3.0 > and > >> makes the API look very confusing with so many methods that do the same > >> thing. Any objections ? > >> > >> Phil > >> > >>> On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 3:59 PM Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I have run my first round of soak and performance tests on what is now > in > >>> the 2.x branch. Good news is the code looks stable. Not so good news > is > >>> it appears that GKOP performance has taken a material hit vs 2.11 and > >>> earlier versions. I need to confirm this via more targeted tests and > if it > >>> turns out not to be real, figure out what is causing it. Hopefully I > will > >>> get to this done in the next few days. > >>> > >>> Phil > >>> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
