hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Enis Soztutar (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-18214) Replace the folly::AtomicHashMap usage in the RPC layer
Date Mon, 19 Jun 2017 20:00:01 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-18214?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16054652#comment-16054652
] 

Enis Soztutar commented on HBASE-18214:
---------------------------------------

Sorry I was looking at the wrong place. My hacked-up patch actually removes another AtomicHashMap,
but this {{ClientDispatcher::requests_}}. So in this patch, I think we should replace both
{{ClientDispatcher::requests_}} and {{ClientHandler::resp_msgs_}}. 

I was testing with the simple-client, and indeed after about 100K RPCs, the client just retries
the same RPC because of the exception from these maps. 

> Replace the folly::AtomicHashMap usage in the RPC layer
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-18214
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-18214
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>            Reporter: Devaraj Das
>            Assignee: Devaraj Das
>         Attachments: 18214-1-1.txt
>
>
> In my tests, I saw that folly::AtomicHashMap usage is not appropriate for one, rather
common use case. It'd become sort of unusable (inserts would hang) after a bunch of inserts
and erases. This hashmap is used to keep track of call-Id after a connection is set up in
the RPC layer (insert a call-id/msg pair when an RPC is sent, and erase the pair when the
corresponding response is received). Here is a simple program that will demonstrate the issue:
> {code}
> folly::AtomicHashMap<int, int> f(100);
> int i = 0;
> while (i < 10000) {
>     try {
>       f.insert(i,100);
>       LOG(INFO) << "Inserted " << i << "  " << f.size();
>       f.erase(i);
>       LOG(INFO) << "Deleted " << i << "  " << f.size();
>       i++;
>     } catch (const std::exception &e) {
>       LOG(INFO) << "Exception " << e.what();
>       break;
>     }
> }
> {code}
> After poking around a little bit, it is indeed called out as a limitation here https://github.com/facebook/folly/blob/master/folly/docs/AtomicHashMap.md
(grep for 'erase'). Proposal is to replace this with something that will fit in in the above
usecase (thinking of using std::unordered_map).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)

Mime
View raw message