[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Andrew Purtell updated HBASE-20716: --- Fix Version/s: 1.5.0 > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Fix For: 3.0.0, 1.5.0, 2.2.0, 2.1.1 > > Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.002.patch, HBASE-20716.master.003.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.004.patch, HBASE-20716.master.005.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.006.patch, HBASE-20716.master.007.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.008.patch, Screen Shot 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] stack updated HBASE-20716: -- Resolution: Fixed Hadoop Flags: Reviewed Fix Version/s: (was: 2.0.3) Status: Resolved (was: Patch Available) Pushed to branch-2.1+. Nice one [~awked06] Thanks for the persistence. > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Fix For: 3.0.0, 2.2.0, 2.1.1 > > Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.002.patch, HBASE-20716.master.003.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.004.patch, HBASE-20716.master.005.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.006.patch, HBASE-20716.master.007.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.008.patch, Screen Shot 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] stack updated HBASE-20716: -- Fix Version/s: 2.0.3 2.1.1 2.2.0 3.0.0 > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Fix For: 3.0.0, 2.2.0, 2.1.1, 2.0.3 > > Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.002.patch, HBASE-20716.master.003.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.004.patch, HBASE-20716.master.005.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.006.patch, HBASE-20716.master.007.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.008.patch, Screen Shot 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sahil Aggarwal updated HBASE-20716: --- Attachment: HBASE-20716.master.008.patch > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.002.patch, HBASE-20716.master.003.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.004.patch, HBASE-20716.master.005.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.006.patch, HBASE-20716.master.007.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.008.patch, Screen Shot 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sahil Aggarwal updated HBASE-20716: --- Attachment: HBASE-20716.master.007.patch > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.002.patch, HBASE-20716.master.003.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.004.patch, HBASE-20716.master.005.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.006.patch, HBASE-20716.master.007.patch, Screen Shot > 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sahil Aggarwal updated HBASE-20716: --- Attachment: HBASE-20716.master.006.patch > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.002.patch, HBASE-20716.master.003.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.004.patch, HBASE-20716.master.005.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.006.patch, Screen Shot 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] stack updated HBASE-20716: -- Status: Patch Available (was: Open) > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.002.patch, HBASE-20716.master.003.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.004.patch, HBASE-20716.master.005.patch, Screen Shot > 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sahil Aggarwal updated HBASE-20716: --- Attachment: HBASE-20716.master.005.patch > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.002.patch, HBASE-20716.master.003.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.004.patch, HBASE-20716.master.005.patch, Screen Shot > 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sahil Aggarwal updated HBASE-20716: --- Attachment: HBASE-20716.master.004.patch > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.002.patch, HBASE-20716.master.003.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.004.patch, Screen Shot 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] stack updated HBASE-20716: -- Issue Type: Sub-task (was: Improvement) Parent: HBASE-20188 > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Sub-task > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.002.patch, HBASE-20716.master.003.patch, Screen Shot > 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sahil Aggarwal updated HBASE-20716: --- Attachment: HBASE-20716.master.003.patch > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.002.patch, HBASE-20716.master.003.patch, Screen Shot > 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sahil Aggarwal updated HBASE-20716: --- Attachment: HBASE-20716.master.002.patch > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch, > HBASE-20716.master.002.patch, Screen Shot 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sahil Aggarwal updated HBASE-20716: --- Attachment: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Assignee: Sahil Aggarwal >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Attachments: HBASE-20716.master.001.patch, Screen Shot 2018-06-26 at > 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] stack updated HBASE-20716: -- Attachment: Screen Shot 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > Attachments: Screen Shot 2018-06-26 at 11.37.49 AM.png > > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] stack updated HBASE-20716: -- Priority: Critical (was: Minor) > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Priority: Critical > Labels: beginner > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
[jira] [Updated] (HBASE-20716) Unsafe access cleanup
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Sean Busbey updated HBASE-20716: Issue Type: Improvement (was: Bug) > Unsafe access cleanup > - > > Key: HBASE-20716 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-20716 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Performance >Reporter: stack >Priority: Minor > Labels: beginner > > We have two means of getting at unsafe; UnsafeAccess and then internal to the > Bytes class. They are effectively doing the same thing. We should have one > avenue to Unsafe only. > Many of our paths to Unsafe via UnsafeAccess traverse flags to check if > access is available, if it is aligned and the order in which words are > written on the machine. Each check costs -- especially if done millions of > times a second -- and on occasion adds bloat in hot code paths. The unsafe > access inside Bytes checks on startup what the machine is capable off and > then does a static assign of the appropriate class-to-use from there on out. > UnsafeAccess does not do this running the checks everytime. Would be good to > have the Bytes behavior pervasive. > The benefit of one access to Unsafe only is plain. The benefits we gain > removing checks will be harder to measure though should be plain when you > disassemble a hot-path; in a (very) rare case, the saved byte codes could be > the difference between inlining or not. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.6.3#76005)
