Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Message-ID: <2903597.1173688449442.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Knut Anders Hatlen (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: [jira] Updated: (DERBY-1704) Allow more concurrency in the lock
 manager
In-Reply-To: <7277312.1155731413837.JavaMail.jira@brutus>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1704?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Knut Anders Hatlen updated DERBY-1704:
--------------------------------------

    Attachment: cleanup4.diff

Attaching a tiny cleanup patch (cleanup4). LockControl.popFrontWaiter() is identical to removeWaiter(), only that it calls remove() with the constant 0 instead of using a parameter. The patch makes popFrontWaiter() forward calls to removeWaiter(). The tests passed.

> Allow more concurrency in the lock manager
> ------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-1704
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-1704
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Performance, Services
>    Affects Versions: 10.2.1.6
>            Reporter: Knut Anders Hatlen
>         Assigned To: Knut Anders Hatlen
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: 1cpu.png, 2cpu.png, 8cpu.png, cleanup1.diff, cleanup1.stat, cleanup1.v2.diff, cleanup2.diff, cleanup3.diff, cleanup3.stat, cleanup4.diff, split-hashtables.diff, split-hashtables.stat
>
>
> I have seen indications of severe monitor contention in SinglePool
> (the current lock manager) when multiple threads access a Derby
> database concurrently. When a thread wants to lock an object, it needs
> to obtain the monitor for both SinglePool and LockSet (both of them
> are global synchronization points). This leads to poor scalability.
> We should investigate how to allow more concurrency in the lock
> manager, and either extend SinglePool or implement a new manager.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.