https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2053/files
I'm checking TC, now, I'll send it for review as soon as pull request passes TC. On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 6:41 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@apache.org> wrote: > Wow, what was patched? Can you provide the code sample being benchmarked? > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 8:00 AM, Mikhail Cherkasov <mcherka...@gridgain.com > > > wrote: > > > Looks like dev list doesn't allow to include pictures in emails, so there > > are links to plots: > > > > Throughput plot without any changes: > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/mc3v5m49u4i2be3/no-changes.png?dl=0 > > > > the same plot with patched ignite: > > https://www.dropbox.com/s/cyojw9nz4smew87/with-chages.png?dl=0 > > > > 17000 operations/sec vs 70 operations/sec. > > > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:57 PM, Mikhail Cherkasov < > mcherka...@gridgain.com > > > wrote: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> I prepared a benchmark for ignite reentrant lock, the benchmark updates > >> cache values under the reentrant lock. > >> The benchmark is based on s real case, when user can't use regular cache > >> locks, because they > >> prevent partition map exchange and as result don't allow new nodes join > >> cluster. > >> > >> Throughput plot without any changes: > >> > >> [image: Inline image 1] > >> > >> the same plot with patched ignite: > >> > >> [image: Inline image 2] > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 1, 2017 at 1:29 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan < > dsetrak...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Won't it be confusing from a user stand point to have multiple data > >>> structures with the same name? Also, what is the performance impact of > >>> this > >>> change? > >>> > >>> D. > >>> > >>> On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 8:23 AM, Semyon Boikov <sboi...@gridgain.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > Hi Mikhail, > >>> > > >>> > As far as I remember for some reason we wanted to guarantee that all > >>> data > >>> > structures have unique names. But now I don't see why this can be > >>> needed > >>> > and it seems we do not need this data structures map at all, if > nobody > >>> have > >>> > objection I think you can implement suggested change. > >>> > > >>> > Thanks! > >>> > > >>> > On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 3:04 PM, Mikhail Cherkasov < > >>> > mcherka...@gridgain.com> > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > Hi all, > >>> > > > >>> > > All DataStructures are stored in one Map which itself is stored in > >>> > > utilityCache, this makes high contention on DS creation or > removing, > >>> it > >>> > > requires to acquire Map's lock and manipulation with the Map under > >>> the > >>> > > lock. So all threads in cluster should wait for this lock to create > >>> or > >>> > > remove DS. > >>> > > > >>> > > I don't see any reason to store all DS in one map, we already have > >>> > > utilityCache and can save DSs directly in utilityCache, to > >>> distinguish DS > >>> > > with other objects in utilityCache I use composite key, the first > >>> part of > >>> > > which is DATA_STRUCTURES_KEY, second one is DS's name, also DS type > >>> can > >>> > be > >>> > > added, this will allow us to create different DS with the same > name. > >>> > > > >>> > > There is draft implementations, all DSs are stored with unique key > in > >>> > > utilityCache: > >>> > > https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2046/files > >>> > > > >>> > > May be there's some reason to store all DS in one Map that I > missed? > >>> > > Any thoughts? > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > -- > >>> > > Thanks, > >>> > > Mikhail. > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Thanks, > >> Mikhail. > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Mikhail. > > > -- Thanks, Mikhail.
