directmemory-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Raffaele P. Guidi" <>
Subject Re: New buffer backend
Date Fri, 12 Jul 2013 21:23:23 GMT
Love it, great job, and expecially the idea of making it usable on its own.
This is more DirectMemory than DirectMemory ;)

Il giorno 12/lug/2013 20:55, "Christoph Engelbert" <>
ha scritto:

> Hey guys
> I finally managed to merge everything together :-)
> As stated a few weeks before I made a partitioned buffer system for
> good performance and less contention.
> It had different selection strategies like TLA (Thread Local
> Allocation), a simple RoundRobin or (on Linux and Windows) CLA
> (Processor Core Local Allocation), whereas the last is done using OS
> calls and JNA.
> It features ByteBuffers for Heap and Offheap as well as Unsafe. It
> has growing buffers (if slice is full a new one is selected) and can
> handle data bigger than Integer.MAX_VALUE (it uses full long
> position pointers).
> It is located in directmemory-buffer submodule since it was it's own
> project and it is fully usable even without having to use
> DirectMemory (I would suggest to give users the chance to use it on
> their own).
> As stated before it introduces a new dependency and especially a
> platform depending one. At least it is a optional dependency and CLA
> is deactivated if JNA is not available on the classpath.
> I although added 3 properties to configure the default strategy of
> creating the PartitionBufferPools:
> directmemory.buffer.pooling.disabled: true deactivates pooling and
> uses lazy creation and immediate destroying on release
> directmemory.buffer.unsafe.enabled: true activates the usage of
> sun.misc.Unsafe raw memory access (a check if unsafe is available is
> applied too)
> directmemory.buffer.offheap.enabled: true enabled DirectByteBuffer
> usage for for the non-unsafe-pools
> I merged it into my local fork of DirectMemory on github [1] but had
> to adjust the API of DirectMemory on some places. I introduced a
> MemoryManagerFactory which handles creation of the different
> MemoryManagers (as the old ones - partly renamed -
> UnsafeMemoryManager and AllocatorMemoryManager) and the new
> PartitionBufferMemoryManager.
> The Pointer-API is now able to use PartitionBuffers as well as the
> old way using byte[].
> I'm not yet finished, working on making all unittests pass again but
> I would appreciate some opinions, discussion on the new API changes.
> Cheers
> Chris
> [1]

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message