Re: tapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size not doing anything
I'm not convinced this solution is thread-safe.
On 1 Jul 2014 17:21, Arjan Verstoep a.j.verst...@alumnus.utwente.nl
wrote:
Yes, the default implementation is very counter-intuitive. I have
invesigated once, and it was possible to 'repair' the ThreadPoolExecutor if
you provide the 'right' work-queue.
I don't know if you can apply this to Tapestry's ThreadPoolExecutor, but
anyhow: here's how I do it:
--Arjan Verstoep
/**
* Specific implementation of the {@link LinkedBlockingQueue} that won't
* accept offered elements as long as the given {@link
ThreadPoolExecutor} has
* not yet reached its maximum capacity.
* pThe intended effect is to have a ThreadPoolExecutor that will only
start
* adding Runnables to the Queue iafter/i the maximum number of
Threads is
* reached. The default implementation of the ThreadPoolExecutor is,
that it
* first starts new Threads when the Queue is full, which with an
unbounded
* Queue will inever/i be the case./p
* pThis class will throw an
* unchecked {@link java.lang.NullPointerException} if the
ThreadPoolExecutor
* is not set with {@link #setExecutor(ThreadPoolExecutor)} !/p
*/
class ThreadCreationTriggeringLinkedBlockingQueueT extends
LinkedBlockingQueueRunnable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
private transient ThreadPoolExecutor _executor;
/**
* pIf the Executor's current pool size is below the maximum pool
size,
* this method will not add the {@link Runnable} to the Queue.br/
* The {@link ThreadPoolExecutor} will then be forced to start a new
Thread.
* /p{@inheritDoc}
*/
@Override
public boolean offer(Runnable inJob) {
if (_executor.getPoolSize() _executor.getMaximumPoolSize()) {
return false;
}
return super.offer(inJob);
}
/**
* Sets the executor which will be used to decide whether or not to
add the
* Runnable to the Queue.
*
* @param inExecutor the ThreadPoolExecutor
*/
public void setExecutor(ThreadPoolExecutor inExecutor) {
_executor = inExecutor;
}
}
ThreadCreationTriggeringLinkedBlockingQueueRunnable queue = new
ThreadCreationTriggeringLinkedBlockingQueueRunnable();
ThreadPoolExecutor threadpoolExecutor = new
ThreadPoolExecutor(availableProcessors(), THREADPOOLMULTIPLICATOR *
availableProcessors(), 10, TimeUnit.MINUTES, queue);
queue.setExecutor(threadpoolExecutor);
On 1 Jul 2014, at 16:04, Lance Java wrote:
I feel the implementation is flawed.
I would prefer that the pool size would increase from minimum to maximum
under load to increase throughput and then revert back to the minimum
when
not under load.
But instead, the pool size stays at minimum until the queue is full. In
my
opinion, the application is about to fall over at this point. Only then
will the pool size increase which i think is crazy / stupid.
Because of this, I've always seen core pool size and max pool size set to
the same value.
To achieve my preferred behaviour (above) I think you can specify
different
pooling behaviour. I think it required throwing exceptions and extending
ThreadPoolExecutor or something nasty like that.
On 1 Jul 2014 12:14, D Tim Cummings t...@triptera.com.au wrote:
Ok, thanks for explaining this... I think :)
I had a read of the ThreadPoolExecutor javadoc. It seems to me that
core-pool-size should be described as the maximum pool size before
queuing.
Describing it as the minimum pool size is misleading because there is no
minimum. The number of threads in the pool before any have been invoked
is
always zero.
Tim
On 1 Jul 2014, at 16:25, Lance Java lance.j...@googlemail.com wrote:
If you read the javadoc for java.util.concurrent ThreadPoolExecutor
you'll
see that the number of threads will only increase when the queue has
reached its capacity. Crazy / stupid behaviour if you ask me... But
expected.
I've been caught out by this before when I set core pool size to 1,
expecting the thread size to increase under load.
On 1 Jul 2014 02:53, D Tim Cummings t...@triptera.com.au wrote:
Hi
I am using Tapestry 5.3.7 and the ParallelExecutor. When I increase
the
max-pool-size I am not able to use any more threads. However when I
increase the core-pool-size I am able to use more threads. It looks
like
the max-pool-size is not doing anything (or I am not understanding
what
it
is supposed to do).
When I use the defaults I get a maximum of 3 threads and other threads
seem to wait in a queue and execute later.
When I use the following settings in web.xml I still get only 3
threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value3/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
When I use the
Re: tapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size not doing anything
You're rigth. If multiple threads are scheduling jobs and the pool has reached
a threadcount of maxsize-1, chances are that a RejectedExecutionException
is thrown. The offer-method should use a lock. Like so:
public boolean offer(Runnable inJob) {
_lock.lock();
try {
if (_executor.getPoolSize() _executor.getMaximumPoolSize()) {
return false;
}
return super.offer(inJob);
} finally {
_lock.unlock();
}
}
--Arjan Verstoep
On 2 Jul 2014, at 09:52, Lance Java wrote:
I'm not convinced this solution is thread-safe.
On 1 Jul 2014 17:21, Arjan Verstoep a.j.verst...@alumnus.utwente.nl
wrote:
Yes, the default implementation is very counter-intuitive. I have
invesigated once, and it was possible to 'repair' the ThreadPoolExecutor if
you provide the 'right' work-queue.
I don't know if you can apply this to Tapestry's ThreadPoolExecutor, but
anyhow: here's how I do it:
--Arjan Verstoep
/**
* Specific implementation of the {@link LinkedBlockingQueue} that won't
* accept offered elements as long as the given {@link
ThreadPoolExecutor} has
* not yet reached its maximum capacity.
* pThe intended effect is to have a ThreadPoolExecutor that will only
start
* adding Runnables to the Queue iafter/i the maximum number of
Threads is
* reached. The default implementation of the ThreadPoolExecutor is,
that it
* first starts new Threads when the Queue is full, which with an
unbounded
* Queue will inever/i be the case./p
* pThis class will throw an
* unchecked {@link java.lang.NullPointerException} if the
ThreadPoolExecutor
* is not set with {@link #setExecutor(ThreadPoolExecutor)} !/p
*/
class ThreadCreationTriggeringLinkedBlockingQueueT extends
LinkedBlockingQueueRunnable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
private transient ThreadPoolExecutor _executor;
/**
* pIf the Executor's current pool size is below the maximum pool
size,
* this method will not add the {@link Runnable} to the Queue.br/
* The {@link ThreadPoolExecutor} will then be forced to start a new
Thread.
* /p{@inheritDoc}
*/
@Override
public boolean offer(Runnable inJob) {
if (_executor.getPoolSize() _executor.getMaximumPoolSize()) {
return false;
}
return super.offer(inJob);
}
/**
* Sets the executor which will be used to decide whether or not to
add the
* Runnable to the Queue.
*
* @param inExecutor the ThreadPoolExecutor
*/
public void setExecutor(ThreadPoolExecutor inExecutor) {
_executor = inExecutor;
}
}
ThreadCreationTriggeringLinkedBlockingQueueRunnable queue = new
ThreadCreationTriggeringLinkedBlockingQueueRunnable();
ThreadPoolExecutor threadpoolExecutor = new
ThreadPoolExecutor(availableProcessors(), THREADPOOLMULTIPLICATOR *
availableProcessors(), 10, TimeUnit.MINUTES, queue);
queue.setExecutor(threadpoolExecutor);
On 1 Jul 2014, at 16:04, Lance Java wrote:
I feel the implementation is flawed.
I would prefer that the pool size would increase from minimum to maximum
under load to increase throughput and then revert back to the minimum
when
not under load.
But instead, the pool size stays at minimum until the queue is full. In
my
opinion, the application is about to fall over at this point. Only then
will the pool size increase which i think is crazy / stupid.
Because of this, I've always seen core pool size and max pool size set to
the same value.
To achieve my preferred behaviour (above) I think you can specify
different
pooling behaviour. I think it required throwing exceptions and extending
ThreadPoolExecutor or something nasty like that.
On 1 Jul 2014 12:14, D Tim Cummings t...@triptera.com.au wrote:
Ok, thanks for explaining this... I think :)
I had a read of the ThreadPoolExecutor javadoc. It seems to me that
core-pool-size should be described as the maximum pool size before
queuing.
Describing it as the minimum pool size is misleading because there is no
minimum. The number of threads in the pool before any have been invoked
is
always zero.
Tim
On 1 Jul 2014, at 16:25, Lance Java lance.j...@googlemail.com wrote:
If you read the javadoc for java.util.concurrent ThreadPoolExecutor
you'll
see that the number of threads will only increase when the queue has
reached its capacity. Crazy / stupid behaviour if you ask me... But
expected.
I've been caught out by this before when I set core pool size to 1,
expecting the thread size to increase under load.
On 1 Jul 2014 02:53, D Tim Cummings t...@triptera.com.au wrote:
Hi
I am using Tapestry 5.3.7 and the ParallelExecutor. When I increase
the
max-pool-size I am not able to use any more threads. However when I
increase the core-pool-size I am able to use more threads. It looks
like
the max-pool-size is not doing anything (or I am not understanding
what
it
is
Re: tapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size not doing anything
If you read the javadoc for java.util.concurrent ThreadPoolExecutor you'll
see that the number of threads will only increase when the queue has
reached its capacity. Crazy / stupid behaviour if you ask me... But
expected.
I've been caught out by this before when I set core pool size to 1,
expecting the thread size to increase under load.
On 1 Jul 2014 02:53, D Tim Cummings t...@triptera.com.au wrote:
Hi
I am using Tapestry 5.3.7 and the ParallelExecutor. When I increase the
max-pool-size I am not able to use any more threads. However when I
increase the core-pool-size I am able to use more threads. It looks like
the max-pool-size is not doing anything (or I am not understanding what it
is supposed to do).
When I use the defaults I get a maximum of 3 threads and other threads
seem to wait in a queue and execute later.
When I use the following settings in web.xml I still get only 3 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value3/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
When I use the following settings in web.xml I get 3 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value3/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value200/param-value
/context-param
When I use the following settings in web.xml I get 20 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
I noticed that the documentation says the default max-pool-size is 20 (
http://tapestry.apache.org/parallel-execution.html ) while the API docs
say the default is 10 (
http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/ioc/IOCSymbols.html
).
I am invoking my threads from a service which contains
@Inject
private ParallelExecutor executor;
@Override
public void doStartThread() {
if ( myFuture == null || myFuture.isDone() ) {
myFuture = executor.invoke(new MyInvokable());
}
}
I have tried in Jetty 8.1.2 (Run Jetty Run in Eclipse) and Tomcat 7.0.52.
Cheers
Tim
Re: tapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size not doing anything
Ok, thanks for explaining this... I think :)
I had a read of the ThreadPoolExecutor javadoc. It seems to me that
core-pool-size should be described as the maximum pool size before queuing.
Describing it as the minimum pool size is misleading because there is no
minimum. The number of threads in the pool before any have been invoked is
always zero.
Tim
On 1 Jul 2014, at 16:25, Lance Java lance.j...@googlemail.com wrote:
If you read the javadoc for java.util.concurrent ThreadPoolExecutor you'll
see that the number of threads will only increase when the queue has
reached its capacity. Crazy / stupid behaviour if you ask me... But
expected.
I've been caught out by this before when I set core pool size to 1,
expecting the thread size to increase under load.
On 1 Jul 2014 02:53, D Tim Cummings t...@triptera.com.au wrote:
Hi
I am using Tapestry 5.3.7 and the ParallelExecutor. When I increase the
max-pool-size I am not able to use any more threads. However when I
increase the core-pool-size I am able to use more threads. It looks like
the max-pool-size is not doing anything (or I am not understanding what it
is supposed to do).
When I use the defaults I get a maximum of 3 threads and other threads
seem to wait in a queue and execute later.
When I use the following settings in web.xml I still get only 3 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value3/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
When I use the following settings in web.xml I get 3 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value3/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value200/param-value
/context-param
When I use the following settings in web.xml I get 20 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
I noticed that the documentation says the default max-pool-size is 20 (
http://tapestry.apache.org/parallel-execution.html ) while the API docs
say the default is 10 (
http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/ioc/IOCSymbols.html
).
I am invoking my threads from a service which contains
@Inject
private ParallelExecutor executor;
@Override
public void doStartThread() {
if ( myFuture == null || myFuture.isDone() ) {
myFuture = executor.invoke(new MyInvokable());
}
}
I have tried in Jetty 8.1.2 (Run Jetty Run in Eclipse) and Tomcat 7.0.52.
Cheers
Tim
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Re: tapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size not doing anything
I feel the implementation is flawed.
I would prefer that the pool size would increase from minimum to maximum
under load to increase throughput and then revert back to the minimum when
not under load.
But instead, the pool size stays at minimum until the queue is full. In my
opinion, the application is about to fall over at this point. Only then
will the pool size increase which i think is crazy / stupid.
Because of this, I've always seen core pool size and max pool size set to
the same value.
To achieve my preferred behaviour (above) I think you can specify different
pooling behaviour. I think it required throwing exceptions and extending
ThreadPoolExecutor or something nasty like that.
On 1 Jul 2014 12:14, D Tim Cummings t...@triptera.com.au wrote:
Ok, thanks for explaining this... I think :)
I had a read of the ThreadPoolExecutor javadoc. It seems to me that
core-pool-size should be described as the maximum pool size before queuing.
Describing it as the minimum pool size is misleading because there is no
minimum. The number of threads in the pool before any have been invoked is
always zero.
Tim
On 1 Jul 2014, at 16:25, Lance Java lance.j...@googlemail.com wrote:
If you read the javadoc for java.util.concurrent ThreadPoolExecutor
you'll
see that the number of threads will only increase when the queue has
reached its capacity. Crazy / stupid behaviour if you ask me... But
expected.
I've been caught out by this before when I set core pool size to 1,
expecting the thread size to increase under load.
On 1 Jul 2014 02:53, D Tim Cummings t...@triptera.com.au wrote:
Hi
I am using Tapestry 5.3.7 and the ParallelExecutor. When I increase the
max-pool-size I am not able to use any more threads. However when I
increase the core-pool-size I am able to use more threads. It looks like
the max-pool-size is not doing anything (or I am not understanding what
it
is supposed to do).
When I use the defaults I get a maximum of 3 threads and other threads
seem to wait in a queue and execute later.
When I use the following settings in web.xml I still get only 3 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value3/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
When I use the following settings in web.xml I get 3 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value3/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value200/param-value
/context-param
When I use the following settings in web.xml I get 20 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
I noticed that the documentation says the default max-pool-size is 20 (
http://tapestry.apache.org/parallel-execution.html ) while the API docs
say the default is 10 (
http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/ioc/IOCSymbols.html
).
I am invoking my threads from a service which contains
@Inject
private ParallelExecutor executor;
@Override
public void doStartThread() {
if ( myFuture == null || myFuture.isDone() ) {
myFuture = executor.invoke(new MyInvokable());
}
}
I have tried in Jetty 8.1.2 (Run Jetty Run in Eclipse) and Tomcat
7.0.52.
Cheers
Tim
Re: tapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size not doing anything
Yes, the default implementation is very counter-intuitive. I have invesigated
once, and it was possible to 'repair' the ThreadPoolExecutor if you provide the
'right' work-queue.
I don't know if you can apply this to Tapestry's ThreadPoolExecutor, but
anyhow: here's how I do it:
--Arjan Verstoep
/**
* Specific implementation of the {@link LinkedBlockingQueue} that won't
* accept offered elements as long as the given {@link ThreadPoolExecutor} has
* not yet reached its maximum capacity.
* pThe intended effect is to have a ThreadPoolExecutor that will only start
* adding Runnables to the Queue iafter/i the maximum number of Threads is
* reached. The default implementation of the ThreadPoolExecutor is, that it
* first starts new Threads when the Queue is full, which with an unbounded
* Queue will inever/i be the case./p
* pThis class will throw an
* unchecked {@link java.lang.NullPointerException} if the ThreadPoolExecutor
* is not set with {@link #setExecutor(ThreadPoolExecutor)} !/p
*/
class ThreadCreationTriggeringLinkedBlockingQueueT extends
LinkedBlockingQueueRunnable {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
private transient ThreadPoolExecutor _executor;
/**
* pIf the Executor's current pool size is below the maximum pool size,
* this method will not add the {@link Runnable} to the Queue.br/
* The {@link ThreadPoolExecutor} will then be forced to start a new Thread.
* /p{@inheritDoc}
*/
@Override
public boolean offer(Runnable inJob) {
if (_executor.getPoolSize() _executor.getMaximumPoolSize()) {
return false;
}
return super.offer(inJob);
}
/**
* Sets the executor which will be used to decide whether or not to add the
* Runnable to the Queue.
*
* @param inExecutor the ThreadPoolExecutor
*/
public void setExecutor(ThreadPoolExecutor inExecutor) {
_executor = inExecutor;
}
}
ThreadCreationTriggeringLinkedBlockingQueueRunnable queue = new
ThreadCreationTriggeringLinkedBlockingQueueRunnable();
ThreadPoolExecutor threadpoolExecutor = new
ThreadPoolExecutor(availableProcessors(), THREADPOOLMULTIPLICATOR *
availableProcessors(), 10, TimeUnit.MINUTES, queue);
queue.setExecutor(threadpoolExecutor);
On 1 Jul 2014, at 16:04, Lance Java wrote:
I feel the implementation is flawed.
I would prefer that the pool size would increase from minimum to maximum
under load to increase throughput and then revert back to the minimum when
not under load.
But instead, the pool size stays at minimum until the queue is full. In my
opinion, the application is about to fall over at this point. Only then
will the pool size increase which i think is crazy / stupid.
Because of this, I've always seen core pool size and max pool size set to
the same value.
To achieve my preferred behaviour (above) I think you can specify different
pooling behaviour. I think it required throwing exceptions and extending
ThreadPoolExecutor or something nasty like that.
On 1 Jul 2014 12:14, D Tim Cummings t...@triptera.com.au wrote:
Ok, thanks for explaining this... I think :)
I had a read of the ThreadPoolExecutor javadoc. It seems to me that
core-pool-size should be described as the maximum pool size before queuing.
Describing it as the minimum pool size is misleading because there is no
minimum. The number of threads in the pool before any have been invoked is
always zero.
Tim
On 1 Jul 2014, at 16:25, Lance Java lance.j...@googlemail.com wrote:
If you read the javadoc for java.util.concurrent ThreadPoolExecutor
you'll
see that the number of threads will only increase when the queue has
reached its capacity. Crazy / stupid behaviour if you ask me... But
expected.
I've been caught out by this before when I set core pool size to 1,
expecting the thread size to increase under load.
On 1 Jul 2014 02:53, D Tim Cummings t...@triptera.com.au wrote:
Hi
I am using Tapestry 5.3.7 and the ParallelExecutor. When I increase the
max-pool-size I am not able to use any more threads. However when I
increase the core-pool-size I am able to use more threads. It looks like
the max-pool-size is not doing anything (or I am not understanding what
it
is supposed to do).
When I use the defaults I get a maximum of 3 threads and other threads
seem to wait in a queue and execute later.
When I use the following settings in web.xml I still get only 3 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value3/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
When I use the following settings in web.xml I get 3 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value3/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
tapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size not doing anything
Hi
I am using Tapestry 5.3.7 and the ParallelExecutor. When I increase the
max-pool-size I am not able to use any more threads. However when I increase
the core-pool-size I am able to use more threads. It looks like the
max-pool-size is not doing anything (or I am not understanding what it is
supposed to do).
When I use the defaults I get a maximum of 3 threads and other threads seem to
wait in a queue and execute later.
When I use the following settings in web.xml I still get only 3 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value3/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
When I use the following settings in web.xml I get 3 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value3/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value200/param-value
/context-param
When I use the following settings in web.xml I get 20 threads
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.core-pool-size /param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
context-param
param-nametapestry.thread-pool.max-pool-size/param-name
param-value20/param-value
/context-param
I noticed that the documentation says the default max-pool-size is 20 (
http://tapestry.apache.org/parallel-execution.html ) while the API docs say the
default is 10 (
http://tapestry.apache.org/current/apidocs/org/apache/tapestry5/ioc/IOCSymbols.html
).
I am invoking my threads from a service which contains
@Inject
private ParallelExecutor executor;
@Override
public void doStartThread() {
if ( myFuture == null || myFuture.isDone() ) {
myFuture = executor.invoke(new MyInvokable());
}
}
I have tried in Jetty 8.1.2 (Run Jetty Run in Eclipse) and Tomcat 7.0.52.
Cheers
Tim
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
