Yes David, indeed our scenarios are different. In mine, I'm measuring the assembly of components using parallel dependency manager where components are concurrently activated, registered, and bound with each other, using a shared thread pool.
cheers; /Pierre On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 3:40 PM, David Bosschaert < david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Pierre, > > Good to hear that the problem is now gone. > I guess the performance improvement measured hugely depends on what > you are testing. My test focuses on multiple clients/threads/bundles > accessing the same service (either singleton or PSF) in a very raw > manner (via ctx.getServiceReference()). > Good to hear that you're still seeing perf improvements but I guess > your test exercises a number of other components as well (e.g. > Dependency Manager) possibly using multiple service registrations, so > that could very well explain some of the differences in our results... > > Cheers, > > David > > On 19 May 2015 at 13:32, Pierre De Rop <pierre.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi David, > > > > Excellent. > > > > I'm glad to confirm that the issue is resolved, and my DM loader is now > > running seamlessly. > > I'm observing an overall gain of 16% compared to the previous 5.0.0. > > (but this has to be taken with care,because I only made a quick test). > > > > I did not have time but I guess I could observe a better performance gain > > on a bigger host with more cpu (I only have four); since synchronization > > cost is usually proportional to the number of available cores and as I > > understand your fix is now based on java.util.concurrent jdk tools. > > > > > > many thanks > > /Pierre > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 1:57 PM, David Bosschaert < > > david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Thanks Pierre for submitting a unit test to FELIX-4866 that helped me > >> enormously in identifying the issue. > >> > >> I have fixed the bug in my code (without degrading performance) and at > >> least your concurrency test, my concurrency tests and all the > >> framework unit tests now consistently pass. I would be very interested > >> in hearing whether your bigger test suit also still behaves as > >> expected. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> David > >> > >> On 14 May 2015 at 22:53, Pierre De Rop <pierre.de...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > the threadump did not help. > >> > I will investigate (may be a bug somewhere in my part; if this is the > >> > case, I would be sorry to make all this noise). > >> > > >> > hope to let you know soon. > >> > > >> > by the way, do you know how to run the SCR integration tests with the > >> > framework from the trunk ? I know that there are some SCR integration > >> tests > >> > that are doing some load tests, and I would be interested to know if > they > >> > are also ok with the framework from the trunk ? > >> > > >> > cheers; > >> > /Pierre > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:06 PM, David Bosschaert < > >> > david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hi Pierre, > >> >> > >> >> It would indeed be useful to find out more about why your test is > >> >> hanging. Maybe analysing a threaddump might give some more > >> >> information? > >> >> > >> >> Cheers, > >> >> > >> >> David > >> >> > >> >> On 14 May 2015 at 19:54, Pierre De Rop <pierre.de...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > Thanks David; I just gave a try, and indeed the parallel test > passed. > >> I > >> >> > observed a gain of around 7/10%. The tool is described in [1]. > >> >> > > >> >> > But I only have 4 cores on my laptop and I will make more tests in > my > >> lab > >> >> > at work (next week) where we have some servers having 32 or even > 128 > >> >> > processors. This will give a better idea of the gain because the > more > >> >> > processor you have, the more synchronization is costly, so I could > >> >> possibly > >> >> > observe a better performance gain. > >> >> > > >> >> > Now, I'm sorry but I think that there is still a problem (I don't > know > >> >> > where): when using more threads, the parallel test does not > complete > >> and > >> >> > stops with a timeout message, indicating that the number of > expected > >> >> > components are not created after a timeout delay of 1 minute. > >> >> > > >> >> > So, I just committed a modified version of the tool in the sandbox > >> which > >> >> > can now take a -Dthreads option in order to configure the number of > >> >> > threads. With -Dthreads=4, its OK. But with -Dthreads=10, then test > >> does > >> >> > not complete and ends with a timeout: > >> >> > > >> >> > $ java -Dthreads=10 -server -jar bin/felix.jar > >> >> > > >> >> > g! Starting benchmarks (each tested bundle will add/remove 630 > >> components > >> >> > during bundle activation). > >> >> > > >> >> > [Starting benchmarks with no processing done in components > >> start > >> >> > methods] > >> >> > > >> >> > Benchmarking bundle: > >> >> > > >> org.apache.felix.dependencymanager.benchmark.dependencymanager.parallel > >> >> > .................................................Could not start > >> >> components > >> >> > timely: current start latch=2, stop latch=630 > >> >> > > >> >> > My current understanding of this is that some components are still > >> >> awaiting > >> >> > for unsatisfied service dependencies, just like if a service > tracker > >> >> would > >> >> > have missed a service registration. > >> >> > > >> >> > I ran the same test during two hours with the previous framework > >> version, > >> >> > and did not observe any problems. > >> >> > > >> >> > I wonder if someone else do have another tool in order to perform > >> another > >> >> > kind of load test, just to see if some problems are also observed. > >> >> > > >> >> > -> from my side, I will do the following: in the past, the > benchmark > >> >> tool > >> >> > supported not only dependencymanager, but also Felix SCR and iPojo. > >> So, I > >> >> > will reintroduce Felix SCR in the benchmark and will check if I > also > >> >> > observe the problem (with -Dthreads=10). > >> >> > > >> >> > I will let you know. > >> >> > > >> >> > cheers; > >> >> > /Pierre > >> >> > > >> >> > [1] > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/felix/trunk/dependencymanager/org.apache.felix.dependencymanager.benchmark/README > >> >> > > >> >> > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 3:41 PM, David Bosschaert < > >> >> > david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> I've fixed this now in > >> >> >> svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1679367 > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Pierre, your loadtest now runs to completion - thanks for > reporting > >> >> >> this issue! I can see that the results for the parallel tests are > a > >> >> >> little bit different than before, but I'm not sure how to read > them > >> so > >> >> >> I'll leave the interpretation of that to you :) > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Cheers, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> David > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On 14 May 2015 at 14:38, David Bosschaert < > >> david.bosscha...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > I think I know what this is. I had some additional changes > exactly > >> in > >> >> >> > this area that I simply forgot to apply this morning. I should > >> have it > >> >> >> > fixed sometime today. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Cheers, > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > David > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On 14 May 2015 at 14:03, David Bosschaert < > >> david.bosscha...@gmail.com > >> >> > > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> Hi Pierre, > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I'll take a look today. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Cheers, > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> David > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On 14 May 2015 at 14:00, Pierre De Rop <pierre.de...@gmail.com > > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> I just committed the benchmark tool in > >> >> >> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/felix/sandbox/pderop/loadtest/, > if > >> you > >> >> >> can > >> >> >> >>> take a look. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> To run the scenario: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> - install jdk8: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> [nxuser@nx0012 pderop]$ java -version > >> >> >> >>> java version "1.8.0_40" > >> >> >> >>> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.8.0_40-b26) > >> >> >> >>> Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (build 25.40-b25, mixed > mode) > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> - checkout the loadtest from > >> >> >> >>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/felix/sandbox/pderop/loadtest/ > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> - go the the "loadtest" directory and start the test, just > like > >> >> this: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> $ java -server -jar bin/felix.jar > >> >> >> >>> Welcome to Apache Felix Gogo > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> g! Starting benchmarks (each tested bundle will add/remove 630 > >> >> >> components > >> >> >> >>> during bundle activation). > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> [Starting benchmarks with no processing done in > >> components > >> >> >> start > >> >> >> >>> methods] > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> Benchmarking bundle: > >> >> >> >>> org.apache.felix.dependencymanager.benchmark.dependencymanager > >> >> >> >>> .................................................. > >> >> >> >>> -> results in nanos: [139,129,744 | 143,957,687 | 152,157,581 > | > >> >> >> 319,631,722 > >> >> >> >>> | 919,838,078] > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> Benchmarking bundle: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> org.apache.felix.dependencymanager.benchmark.dependencymanager.parallel > >> >> . > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> Here, the first > >> >> >> >>> > "org.apache.felix.dependencymanager.benchmark.dependencymanager" > >> >> test > >> >> >> >>> (single-threaded) passes OK. But the next one hangs > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > (org.apache.felix.dependencymanager.benchmark.dependencymanager.parallel). > >> >> >> >>> it uses a fork join pool with size=4. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> and when typing "log warn", we see: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> "log warn" > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> 2015.05.14 13:56:10 ERROR - Bundle: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> org.apache.felix.dependencymanager.benchmark.dependencymanager.parallel > >> >> - > >> >> >> >>> [ForkJoinPool-1-worker-3] Error processing tasks - > >> >> >> >>> java.util.ConcurrentModificationException > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> java.util.HashMap$HashIterator.nextNode(HashMap.java:1429) > >> >> >> >>> at > java.util.HashMap$KeyIterator.next(HashMap.java:1453) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> java.util.AbstractCollection.addAll(AbstractCollection.java:343) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.framework.capabilityset.CapabilitySet.match(CapabilitySet.java:245) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.framework.capabilityset.CapabilitySet.match(CapabilitySet.java:212) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.framework.capabilityset.CapabilitySet.match(CapabilitySet.java:189) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.framework.ServiceRegistry.getServiceReferences(ServiceRegistry.java:269) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> > org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.getServiceReferences(Felix.java:3577) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.getAllowedServiceReferences(Felix.java:3655) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.framework.BundleContextImpl.getServiceReferences(BundleContextImpl.java:434) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.dm.tracker.ServiceTracker.getInitialReferences(ServiceTracker.java:422) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> org.apache.felix.dm.tracker.ServiceTracker.open(ServiceTracker.java:375) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> org.apache.felix.dm.tracker.ServiceTracker.open(ServiceTracker.java:319) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> org.apache.felix.dm.tracker.ServiceTracker.open(ServiceTracker.java:295) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.dm.impl.ServiceDependencyImpl.start(ServiceDependencyImpl.java:226) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.dm.impl.ComponentImpl.startDependencies(ComponentImpl.java:657) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.dm.impl.ComponentImpl.performTransition(ComponentImpl.java:535) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.dm.impl.ComponentImpl.handleChange(ComponentImpl.java:492) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> > org.apache.felix.dm.impl.ComponentImpl.access$5(ComponentImpl.java:482) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> org.apache.felix.dm.impl.ComponentImpl$3.run(ComponentImpl.java:227) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.dm.impl.DispatchExecutor.runTask(DispatchExecutor.java:182) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> org.apache.felix.dm.impl.DispatchExecutor.run(DispatchExecutor.java:165) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask$RunnableExecuteAction.exec(ForkJoinTask.java:1402) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:289) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.runTask(ForkJoinPool.java:1056) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1689) > >> >> >> >>> at > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:157) > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> (I will investigate also in my code to check if the problem > does > >> not > >> >> >> come > >> >> >> >>> from me ?) > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> cheers; > >> >> >> >>> /Pierre > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Pierre De Rop < > >> >> pierre.de...@gmail.com > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >>> wrote: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>>> Hi David, > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> I don't know if it's me (a bug in my benchmark tool) or if if > >> there > >> >> >> is a > >> >> >> >>>> regression somewhere in the framework, by my parallel test > does > >> not > >> >> >> pass > >> >> >> >>>> anymore. > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> The test first starts with a single-threaded scenario, which > >> >> passes OK > >> >> >> >>>> > >> (org.apache.felix.dependencymanager.benchmark.dependencymanager), > >> >> >> then when > >> >> >> >>>> the parallel test starts > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > (org.apache.felix.dependencymanager.benchmark.dependencymanager.parallel) > >> >> >> >>>> it suddenly hangs, and when I type "log warn" under the gogo > >> >> shell, I > >> >> >> see > >> >> >> >>>> the following exception: > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> (I'm using java8): > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> $ java -server -Xmx4g -Xms4g -jar bin/felix.jar > >> >> >> >>>> ____________________________ > >> >> >> >>>> Welcome to Apache Felix Gogo > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> Benchmarking bundle: > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> org.apache.felix.dependencymanager.benchmark.dependencymanager.parallel > >> >> . > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> (here, the dependencymanager.parallel test hangs and when I > type > >> >> "log > >> >> >> >>>> warn", I see this:) > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> g! log warn > >> >> >> >>>> 2015.05.14 13:31:03 ERROR - Bundle: > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> org.apache.felix.dependencymanager.benchmark.dependencymanager.parallel > >> >> - > >> >> >> >>>> [ForkJoinPool-1-worker-3] Error processing tasks - > >> >> >> >>>> java.util.ConcurrentModificationException > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> java.util.HashMap$HashIterator.nextNode(HashMap.java:1429) > >> >> >> >>>> at > java.util.HashMap$KeyIterator.next(HashMap.java:1453) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> java.util.AbstractCollection.addAll(AbstractCollection.java:343) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.framework.capabilityset.CapabilitySet.match(CapabilitySet.java:245) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.framework.capabilityset.CapabilitySet.match(CapabilitySet.java:212) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.framework.capabilityset.CapabilitySet.match(CapabilitySet.java:189) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.framework.ServiceRegistry.getServiceReferences(ServiceRegistry.java:269) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> > org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.getServiceReferences(Felix.java:3577) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.framework.Felix.getAllowedServiceReferences(Felix.java:3655) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.framework.BundleContextImpl.getServiceReferences(BundleContextImpl.java:434) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.dm.tracker.ServiceTracker.getInitialReferences(ServiceTracker.java:422) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> org.apache.felix.dm.tracker.ServiceTracker.open(ServiceTracker.java:375) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> org.apache.felix.dm.tracker.ServiceTracker.open(ServiceTracker.java:319) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> org.apache.felix.dm.tracker.ServiceTracker.open(ServiceTracker.java:295) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.dm.impl.ServiceDependencyImpl.start(ServiceDependencyImpl.java:226) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.dm.impl.ComponentImpl.startDependencies(ComponentImpl.java:657) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.dm.impl.ComponentImpl.performTransition(ComponentImpl.java:535) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.dm.impl.ComponentImpl.handleChange(ComponentImpl.java:492) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> org.apache.felix.dm.impl.ComponentImpl.access$5(ComponentImpl.java:482) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> org.apache.felix.dm.impl.ComponentImpl$3.run(ComponentImpl.java:227) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > org.apache.felix.dm.impl.DispatchExecutor.runTask(DispatchExecutor.java:182) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> org.apache.felix.dm.impl.DispatchExecutor.run(DispatchExecutor.java:165) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask$RunnableExecuteAction.exec(ForkJoinTask.java:1402) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinTask.doExec(ForkJoinTask.java:289) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool$WorkQueue.runTask(ForkJoinPool.java:1056) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinPool.runWorker(ForkJoinPool.java:1689) > >> >> >> >>>> at > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > java.util.concurrent.ForkJoinWorkerThread.run(ForkJoinWorkerThread.java:157) > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> (If I configure my threadpool to 1, I have no problems, but > with > >> >> >> >>>> threadpool=4, then I have the problem) > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> I will investigate, but Ideally, may be it would be helpful > if > >> you > >> >> >> could > >> >> >> >>>> also run the test by yourself; so I will commit soon > something > >> to > >> >> >> reproduce > >> >> >> >>>> the problem in my sandbox. > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> cheers; > >> >> >> >>>> /Pierre > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 11:11 AM, David Bosschaert < > >> >> >> >>>> david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> I've committed this now in > >> >> >> >>>>> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revision&revision=1679327 > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> Curious to see what others are measuring. My tests were > >> focused on > >> >> >> >>>>> multiple bundles/threads obtaining the same service, as > that's > >> >> were I > >> >> >> >>>>> saw a bit of contention. > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> Cheers, > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> David > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> On 13 May 2015 at 15:10, Pierre De Rop < > pierre.de...@gmail.com > >> > > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>> > Hi David, > >> >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>> > I'm looking forward to test your improvements using the > >> >> >> >>>>> dependencymanager > >> >> >> >>>>> > benchmark tool ([1]). > >> >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>> > [1] > >> >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/felix/trunk/dependencymanager/org.apache.felix.dependencymanager.benchmark/ > >> >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>> > /Pierre > >> >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>> > On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 3:02 PM, David Bosschaert < > >> >> >> >>>>> > david.bosscha...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> I have implemented the performance improvements that I > was > >> >> >> thinking of > >> >> >> >>>>> >> using Java 5 concurrency tools, they can be viewed at > [1]. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> I wrote a little performance test suite [2] that tests > >> >> >> multithreaded > >> >> >> >>>>> >> service registry performance (10 threads) from single / > >> >> multiple > >> >> >> >>>>> >> bundles with either singleton services and Prototype > Service > >> >> >> Factory > >> >> >> >>>>> >> services and the results are quite impressive. I'm > getting > >> >> >> performance > >> >> >> >>>>> >> improvements compared to the current trunk from 8 times > >> better > >> >> >> than > >> >> >> >>>>> >> the original (800%) to more than 30 times better (3000%). > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> Carsten has already reviewed the code (thanks Carsten!) > and > >> I'm > >> >> >> >>>>> >> planning to commit it to Felix tomorrow if nobody > objects. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> Cheers, > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> David > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> [1] > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://github.com/bosschaert/felix/commit/e6a1b06c6e66d9c98e6d81b91ef7003c8e725450 > >> >> >> >>>>> >> [2] > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://github.com/bosschaert/coderthoughts/tree/master/service-registry-perftest/srperf > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> On 23 March 2015 at 15:39, Richard S. Hall < > >> >> he...@ungoverned.org> > >> >> >> >>>>> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > On 3/23/15 10:17 , David Bosschaert wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> On 23 March 2015 at 13:39, Richard S. Hall < > >> >> >> he...@ungoverned.org> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> On 3/23/15 03:55 , Guillaume Nodet wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>>> There's a call to interrupt() in > >> >> Felix#acquireBundleLock(), > >> >> >> not > >> >> >> >>>>> sure > >> >> >> >>>>> >> if > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>>> it > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>>> can be the culprit though. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>>> Interrupts could also be caused by a bundle being > >> shutdown > >> >> >> while > >> >> >> >>>>> one > >> >> >> >>>>> >> of > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>>> its > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>>> thread is waiting for a service, which should is a > >> valid > >> >> use > >> >> >> case > >> >> >> >>>>> >> imho. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>>> Anyway, I think sanely reacting to a thread being > >> >> interrupted > >> >> >> >>>>> would be > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>>> good. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> Yes, threads can be interrupted if they are holding a > >> >> bundle > >> >> >> lock > >> >> >> >>>>> and > >> >> >> >>>>> >> the > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> global lock holder needs the bundle lock. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> I admit that I do not recall why we ignore the > interrupt > >> >> >> here, but > >> >> >> >>>>> >> didn't > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> we > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> implement service lookup so that a bundle lock wasn't > >> >> >> necessary? I > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> thought > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> we just checked for the validity of the bundle > context > >> >> before > >> >> >> >>>>> returning > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> or > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> something. Perhaps we felt there was no reason to be > >> >> >> interrupted in > >> >> >> >>>>> >> that > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >>> case. I really don't know. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> I think that the Service Registry could be rewritten > to > >> be > >> >> >> >>>>> completely > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> free of synchronized blocks using the Java 5 > concurrency > >> >> >> libraries, > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > Well, that just moves the sync blocks to the library, > but > >> >> yeah > >> >> >> sure. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> which I think would really be a better approach. > There is > >> >> too > >> >> >> much > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> locking going on in the current SR implementation > IMHO. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > I don't really think there is too much, but it is > >> >> complicated. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > Unfortunately, it is complicated to make sure that > locks > >> >> aren't > >> >> >> held > >> >> >> >>>>> >> while > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > do service lookups and this is complicated because you > can > >> >> run > >> >> >> into > >> >> >> >>>>> >> cycles, > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > etc. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > But feel free to try to simplify it. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> This brings the question: can we move to Java 5 (or > Java > >> 6) > >> >> >> for the > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Framework codebase? AFAIK we're currently still JDK > 1.4 > >> >> >> compatible > >> >> >> >>>>> but > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> I would be surprised if there is anyone who still > needs a > >> >> JDK > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> went end-of-life 7 years ago. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > At this point, it doesn't really matter to me. > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > -> richard > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> Best regards, > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> >> >> David > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > > >> >> >> >>>>> >> > >> >> >> >>>>> > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
