Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-hbase-issues-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-issues-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 878C5DC6F for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:27:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 37127 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2012 06:27:15 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-hbase-issues-archive@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 37087 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2012 06:27:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list issues@hbase.apache.org Received: (qmail 37058 invoked by uid 99); 26 Oct 2012 06:27:14 -0000 Received: from arcas.apache.org (HELO arcas.apache.org) (140.211.11.28) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:27:14 +0000 Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 06:27:14 +0000 (UTC) From: "stack (JIRA)" To: issues@hbase.apache.org Message-ID: <269970573.31055.1351232834921.JavaMail.jiratomcat@arcas> In-Reply-To: <779740623.7076.1335669311348.JavaMail.tomcat@hel.zones.apache.org> Subject: [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-5898) Consider double-checked locking for block cache lock MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-JIRA-FingerPrint: 30527f35849b9dde25b450d4833f0394 [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5898?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13484739#comment-13484739 ] stack commented on HBASE-5898: ------------------------------ [~ram_krish] How you mean Ram? It was stuck where in particular? Was it a bunch of threads getting same block? What did the thread dump look like? There is some issue in here around the wait/notify it seems as implemented. The double-checked is probably better anyways but could the issue come back just less frequently after this patch goes in? > Consider double-checked locking for block cache lock > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Key: HBASE-5898 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5898 > Project: HBase > Issue Type: Improvement > Components: Performance > Affects Versions: 0.94.1 > Reporter: Todd Lipcon > Assignee: Todd Lipcon > Priority: Critical > Fix For: 0.94.3, 0.96.0 > > Attachments: 5898-TestBlocksRead.txt, HBASE-5898-0.patch, HBASE-5898-1.patch, hbase-5898.txt > > > Running a workload with a high query rate against a dataset that fits in cache, I saw a lot of CPU being used in IdLock.getLockEntry, being called by HFileReaderV2.readBlock. Even though it was all cache hits, it was wasting a lot of CPU doing lock management here. I wrote a quick patch to switch to a double-checked locking and it improved throughput substantially for this workload. -- This message is automatically generated by JIRA. If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira