[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-323?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Benoit Tellier updated MIME4J-323:
----------------------------------
Attachment: Screenshot from 2023-02-13 16-45-40.png
> About MimeTokenStream usage of LinkedList
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: MIME4J-323
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-323
> Project: James Mime4j
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core
> Reporter: Benoit Tellier
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: Screenshot from 2023-02-13 16-45-40.png
>
>
> A defacto programming MOJO around is that linked list is bad: overhead of
> allocating bi-directional pointers, bad cache locality, etc... The benefits
> are low compared to precised arrays that are a better de-facto choice.
> Now see attached a flame graph from James showing 2% of its allocation, and
> 18.7 of memory allocations of that parsing use case. See attached flame graph.
> I benchmarked ArrayDeque usage locally and it was shlightly faster (in the ms
> range) and allocated ~1KB less per message:
> {code:java}
> BEFORE
> JMHLongMultipartReadBench.benchmark1
> avgt 5 39.842 ± 1.820 us/op
> JMHLongMultipartReadBench.benchmark1:·gc.alloc.rate.norm
> avgt 5 19448.003 ± 0.001 B/op
> AFTER
> JMHLongMultipartReadBench.benchmark1 avgt
> 5 38.687 ± 2.935 us/op
> JMHLongMultipartReadBench.benchmark1:·gc.alloc.rate.norm avgt
> 5 18128.003 ± 0.001 B/op
> {code}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
