Mailing-List: contact issues-help@hbase.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 05:03:12 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Lars Hofhansl (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: issues@hbase.apache.org
Message-ID: <655978151.67584.1352091792197.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


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-5898?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13490454#comment-13490454 ] 

Lars Hofhansl commented on HBASE-5898:
--------------------------------------

I wonder whether HBASE-6032 helps with this.
                
> 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