Hello guys, I've tried to optimize tracing implementation (ticket [1]), it reduced the drop, but not completely removed it. Ivan Rakov, Alexander Lapin, can you please review the patch? Ivan Artiukhov, can you please benchmark the patch [2] against 2.8.1 release on your environment? With this patch on our environment, it's about a 3% drop left, it's close to measurement error and I think such a drop is not a showstopper. Guys, WDYT?
Also, I found that compatibility is broken for JDBC thin driver between 2.8 and 2.9 versions (ticket [3]). I think it's a blocker and should be fixed in 2.9. I've prepared the patch. Taras Ledkov, can you please review this patch? And one more ticket I propose to include into 2.9 [4] (NIO message send problem in some circumstances). I will cherry-pick it if there is no objection. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13411 [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/8223 [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13414 [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13361 пн, 7 сент. 2020 г. в 14:14, Maxim Muzafarov <mmu...@apache.org>: > Alexey, > > I propose to include [1] issue to the 2.9 release. Since this issue is > related to the new master key change functionality which haven't been > released yet I think it will be safe to cherry-pick commit to the > release branch. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13390 > > On Tue, 1 Sep 2020 at 12:13, Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > Hello, Igniters. > > > > Alexey, please, include one more Python thin client fix [1] into the 2.9 > release > > It fixes kinda major issue - "Python client returns fields in wrong > order since the 2 row when fields_count>10" > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12809 > > [2] > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/38025ee4167f05eaa2d6a2c5c2ab70c83a462cfc > > > > > 31 авг. 2020 г., в 19:23, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> > написал(а): > > > > > > Alexey, thanks, got it. I am not sure we can optimize anything out of > the > > > message factory with suppliers (at least I have no ideas right now), so > > > most likely the only move here is to switch back to the switch approach > > > somehow preserving the metrics part. Probably, inlining the Ignite > messages > > > to the IgniteMessageFactoryImpl should do the trick. Let me explore the > > > code a bit. > > > > > > P.S. I am surprised by the impact this part makes for the performance. > > > Message creation is indeed on the hot path, but a single virtual call > > > should not make that much of a difference given the amount of other > work > > > happening during the message processing. > > > > > > пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 18:33, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com>: > > > > > >> Alexey, sorry, I wrongly interpreted our benchmark results. Actually, > we > > >> were looking for a drop using bi-sect in the range between e6a7f93 > (first > > >> commit in the 2.9 branch after 2.8 branch cut) and 6592dfa5 (last > commit in > > >> the 2.9 branch). And we found these two problematic commits. > > >> > > >> Perhaps only IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) is responsible for a drop between > > >> 2.8.1 and 2.9 (we have benchmarked 2.8.1 vs 2.9 with reverted > IGNITE-13060 > > >> now and performance looks the same) > > >> > > >> Ticket IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring) is not related to > drop > > >> between 2.8.1 and 2.9, but still has some performance problem, and we > can > > >> win back IGNITE-13060 drop by this ticket. > > >> > > >> Do we need more investigation on IGNITE-13060 or we leave it as is? > > >> > > >> What should we do with IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring)? > > >> > > >> пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 13:25, Alexey Goncharuk < > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > > >>> : > > >> > > >>> Alexey, > > >>> > > >>> While investigating, I found that IGNITE-12568 has an incorrect fix > > >>> version and is actually present in ignite-2.8.1 branch [1], so it > cannot be > > >>> the source of the drop against 2.8.1. > > >>> > > >>> P.S. Looks like we need to enforce a more accurate work with fix > versions > > >>> or develop some sort of tooling to verify the fix versions. > > >>> > > >>> --AG > > >>> > > >>> [1] > > >>> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/3e492bd23851856bbd0385c6a419892d0bba2a34 > > >>> > > >>> пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 12:42, Alexey Goncharuk < > alexey.goncha...@gmail.com > > >>>> : > > >>> > > >>>> пт, 28 авг. 2020 г. в 11:16, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.a...@gmail.com > >: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Guys, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> We have benchmarked 2.9 without IGNITE-13060 and IGNITE-12568 > (reverted > > >>>>> it > > >>>>> locally) and got the same performance as on 2.8.1 > > >>>>> > > >>>>> IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) - some code was added to hot paths, to trace > > >>>>> these > > >>>>> hot paths, it's clear why we have performance drop here. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring) - switch/case block was > > >>>>> refactored to an array of message suppliers. The message factory > is on > > >>>>> the > > >>>>> hot path, which explains why this commit has an impact on total > > >>>>> performance. > > >>>>> I've checked JIT assembly output, done some JMH microbenchmarks, > and > > >>>>> found > > >>>>> that old implementation of MessageFactory.create() about 30-35% > faster > > >>>>> than > > >>>>> the new one. The reason - approach with switch/case can effectively > > >>>>> inline > > >>>>> message creation code, but with an array of suppliers relatively > heavy > > >>>>> "invokeinterface" cannot be skipped. I've tried to rewrite the code > > >>>>> using > > >>>>> an abstract class for suppliers instead of an interface (to > > >>>>> replace "invokeinterface" with the "invokevirtual"), but it gives > back > > >>>>> only > > >>>>> 10% of method performance and in this case, code looks ugly > (lambdas > > >>>>> can't > > >>>>> be used). Currently, I can't find any more ways to optimize the > current > > >>>>> approach (except return to the switch/case block). Andrey Gura, as > the > > >>>>> author of IGNITE-12568, maybe you have some ideas about > optimization? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Perhaps we should revert IGNITE-12568, but there are some metrics > > >>>>> already > > >>>>> created, which can't be rewritten using old message factory > > >>>>> implementation > > >>>>> (IGNITE-12756). Guys, WDYT? > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> Alexey, > > >>>> > > >>>> I see that IGNITE-12756 (metrics improvements) is already released > in > > >>>> Ignite 2.8.1 while IGNITE-12568 (message factory) is only present > in Ignite > > >>>> 2.9. Let's revert both IGNITE-12568 and whichever new metrics > created for > > >>>> 2.9 that depend on the new message factory to unblock the release > and deal > > >>>> with the optimizations in 2.10? > > >>>> > > >>> > > >
