[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5898?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13487542#comment-13487542
]
Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-5898:
--------------------------------------
What should we do with this one?
@Ram: you're probably right, on the other hand I cannot see anything wrong with
this code (and I looked at it multiple times). The proposed patch will probably
not fix the problem you saw.
And from some comment earlier it is doubtful that this patch is even an
improvement for the issue that Todd saw. I'd say we should table this (at least
for 0.94), until we know what exactly the issue is.
> Consider double-checked locking for block cache lock
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-5898
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5898
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: Performance
> Affects Versions: 0.94.1
> Reporter: Todd Lipcon
> Assignee: Todd Lipcon
> Priority: Critical
> Fix For: 0.94.3, 0.96.0
>
> Attachments: 5898-TestBlocksRead.txt, HBASE-5898-0.patch,
> HBASE-5898-1.patch, hbase-5898.txt
>
>
> Running a workload with a high query rate against a dataset that fits in
> cache, I saw a lot of CPU being used in IdLock.getLockEntry, being called by
> HFileReaderV2.readBlock. Even though it was all cache hits, it was wasting a
> lot of CPU doing lock management here. I wrote a quick patch to switch to a
> double-checked locking and it improved throughput substantially for this
> workload.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
