cassandra-commits mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Benedict (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CASSANDRA-5549) Remove Table.switchLock
Date Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:46:22 GMT


Benedict commented on CASSANDRA-5549:

bq. Do we rely on accept returning true before issue, or can we make that IllegalState?

It's a necessity of the semantics. For accept() to be properly synchronised with issue(),
it needs to be called as soon as the Barrier is exposed, so that false can happen the instant
issue() happens. Probably should have commented that better. The semantics of accept remain
consistent, though - namely that it only returns true for any operations started before the
(eventual) issue().

> Remove Table.switchLock
> -----------------------
>                 Key: CASSANDRA-5549
>                 URL:
>             Project: Cassandra
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Jonathan Ellis
>            Assignee: Benedict
>              Labels: performance
>             Fix For: 2.1
>         Attachments: 5549-removed-switchlock.png, 5549-sunnyvale.png
> As discussed in CASSANDRA-5422, Table.switchLock is a bottleneck on the write path. 
ReentrantReadWriteLock is not lightweight, even if there is no contention per se between readers
and writers of the lock (in Cassandra, memtable updates and switches).

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

View raw message