ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Denis Magda <dma...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Brand new JMH and Yardstick benchmarks
Date Thu, 20 Jul 2017 20:13:57 GMT

Sounds like a useful addition, thanks! Does it make sense to document the usage and specificities
you are mentioning on an Ignite wiki page?


> On Jul 20, 2017, at 9:59 AM, Александр Меньшиков <sharplermc@gmail.com>
> Hi, guys. I have written benchmarks for comparing IgniteCache.lock() and
> Ignite.reentrantLock() and they merged to master branch.
> If someone new wants to make benchmarks look at the implementation. Don't
> forget to write both JMH and Yardstick benchmarks.
> In process of writing, I have found out that locks in Ignite have not any
> optimization for the situation when locks are unnecessary. So you don't
> need adding any operation between lock/unlock operations. Which is not true
> for standard Java locks classes because JIT can remove locks with an empty
> body. For check such situation you need to make three benchmarks: the first
> only with locks but without the body, second with read/write operations but
> without locks, and the other with locks and operations. And make sure
> result is consistent. It's okay if the third benchmark works faster than
> the first and the second in sum.
> Classes:
> 1. JMH:
>    1)
> org.apache.ignite.internal.benchmarks.jmh.cache.JmhCacheLocksBenchmark
> 2. Yardstick:
>    1) org.apache.ignite.yardstick.cache.IgniteLockBenchmark
>    2) org.apache.ignite.yardstick.cache.IgniteCacheLockBenchmark

View raw message