openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin Sutter" <kwsut...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn commit: r506230 - in /incubator/openjpa/trunk: openjpa-kernel/src/main/java/org/apache/openjpa/ee/ openjpa-kernel/src/main/java/org/apache/openjpa/kernel/ openjpa-kernel/src/main/java/org/apache/openjpa/util/ openjpa-kernel/src/main/resources
Date Mon, 12 Feb 2007 17:34:19 GMT
Abe,
Thanks for the feedback.  I know that we have been running with both the IBM
and Sun JDK's, but let me get together with my performance team and discuss
your concerns.  We will try to provide more concrete data on these updates.

I understand your concerns, but instead of immediately backing out these
changes (since none of our existing test buckets or other testing is
directly affected), I'll just open another JIRA Issue to resolve these
issues in short order.  Thanks for your patience.

Kevin

On 2/12/07, Abe White <awhite@bea.com> wrote:
>
>
> > ======================================================================
> > ========
> > --- incubator/openjpa/trunk/openjpa-kernel/src/main/java/org/apache/
> > openjpa/ee/JNDIManagedRuntime.java (original)
> > +++ incubator/openjpa/trunk/openjpa-kernel/src/main/java/org/apache/
> > openjpa/ee/JNDIManagedRuntime.java Sun Feb 11 18:33:05 2007
> > @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@
> >      implements ManagedRuntime {
> >
> >      private String _tmLoc = "java:/TransactionManager";
> > +    private static TransactionManager _tm;
>
> Whoa, I didn't think you meant caching the TM statically.  That has
> to be backed out.  You can cache it in an instance variable, but not
> statically.  Nothing should prevent someone having two different
> BrokerFactories accessing two different TMs at two different JNDI
> locations.
>
> BrokerImpl:
> > +     * Cache from/to assignments to avoid Class.isAssignableFrom
> > overhead
> > +     * @param from the target Class
> > +     * @param to the Class to test
> > +     * @return true if the "to" class could be assigned to "from"
> > class
> > +     */
> > +    private boolean isAssignable(Class from, Class to) {
> > +      boolean isAssignable;
> > +      ConcurrentReferenceHashMap assignableTo =
> > +          (ConcurrentReferenceHashMap) _assignableTypes.get(from);
> > +
> > +      if (assignableTo != null) { // "to" cache exists...
> > +          isAssignable = (assignableTo.get(to) != null);
> > +          if (!isAssignable) { // not in the map yet...
> > +              isAssignable = from.isAssignableFrom(to);
> > +              if (isAssignable) {
> > +                  assignableTo.put(to, new Object());
> > +              }
> > +          }
> > +      } else { // no "to" cache yet...
> > +          isAssignable = from.isAssignableFrom(to);
> > +          if (isAssignable) {
> > +              assignableTo = new ConcurrentReferenceHashMap(
> > +                      ReferenceMap.HARD, ReferenceMap.WEAK);
> > +              _assignableTypes.put(from, assignableTo);
> > +              assignableTo.put(to, new Object());
> > +          }
> > +      }
> > +      return isAssignable;
> > +    }
>
> This code could be simplified a lot.  Also, I don't understand what
> you're trying to do from a memory management perspective.  For the
> _assignableTypes member you've got the Class keys using hard refs and
> the Map values using weak refs.  No outside code references the Map
> values, so all entries should be eligible for GC pretty much
> immediately.  The way reference hash maps work prevents them from
> expunging stale entries except on mutators, but still... every time a
> new entry is added, all the old entries should be getting GC'd and
> removed.  Same for the individual Map values, which again map a hard
> class ref to an unreferenced object value with a weak ref.  Basically
> the whole map-of-maps system should never contain more than one entry
> total after a GC run and a mutation.
>
> I'd really like to see you run your tests under a different JVM,
> because it seems to me like (a) this shouldn't be necessary in the
> first place, and (b) if this is working, it's again only because of
> some JVM particulars or GC timing particulars or testing particulars
> (I've seen profilers skew results in random ways like this) or even a
> bug in ConcurrentReferenceHashMap.
>
> The same goes for all the repeat logic in FetchConfigurationImpl.
> And if we keep this code or some variant of it, I strongly suggest
> moving it to a common place like ImplHelper.
>
> > +    /**
> > +     * Generate the hashcode for this Id.  Cache the type's
> > generated hashcode
> > +     * so that it doesn't have to be generated each time.
> > +     */
> >      public int hashCode() {
> >          if (_typeHash == 0) {
> > -            Class base = type;
> > -            while (base.getSuperclass() != null
> > -                && base.getSuperclass() != Object.class)
> > -                base = base.getSuperclass();
> > -            _typeHash = base.hashCode();
> > +            Integer typeHashInt = (Integer) _typeCache.get(type);
> > +            if (typeHashInt == null) {
> > +                Class base = type;
> > +                Class superclass = base.getSuperclass();
> > +                while (superclass != null && superclass !=
> > Object.class) {
> > +                    base = base.getSuperclass();
> > +                    superclass = base.getSuperclass();
> > +                }
> > +                _typeHash = base.hashCode();
> > +                _typeCache.put(type, new Integer(_typeHash));
> > +            } else {
> > +                _typeHash = typeHashInt.intValue();
> > +            }
> >          }
> >          return _typeHash ^ idHash();
> >      }
>
> Once again, you're mapping a hard Class ref to a value with no
> outside references held in a weak ref.  Once again that means the
> entry should be immediately eligible for GC, and therefore should be
> removed on the next mutation of the cache, subject to GC timing.  And
> again I'd like to know what your JVM is doing to make Class.hashCode
> take an appreciable amount of time.  Aren't Class instances supposed
> to be singletons?  What if we just used System.identityHashCode(cls)?
>
> > Modified: incubator/openjpa/trunk/openjpa-lib/src/main/java/org/
> > apache/openjpa/lib/conf/ObjectValue.java
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/incubator/openjpa/trunk/openjpa-
> > lib/src/main/java/org/apache/openjpa/lib/conf/ObjectValue.java?
> > view=diff&rev=506230&r1=506229&r2=506230
> > ======================================================================
> > ========
> > --- incubator/openjpa/trunk/openjpa-lib/src/main/java/org/apache/
> > openjpa/lib/conf/ObjectValue.java (original)
> > +++ incubator/openjpa/trunk/openjpa-lib/src/main/java/org/apache/
> > openjpa/lib/conf/ObjectValue.java Sun Feb 11 18:33:05 2007
> > @@ -17,6 +17,8 @@
> >
> >  import org.apache.commons.lang.ObjectUtils;
> >  import org.apache.openjpa.lib.util.Localizer;
> > +import org.apache.openjpa.lib.util.ReferenceMap;
> > +import
> > org.apache.openjpa.lib.util.concurrent.ConcurrentReferenceHashMap;
> >
> >  /**
> >   * An object {@link Value}.
> > @@ -28,6 +30,10 @@
> >      private static final Localizer _loc = Localizer.forPackage
> >          (ObjectValue.class);
> >
> > +    // cache the types' classloader
> > +    private static ConcurrentReferenceHashMap _classloaderCache =
> > +        new ConcurrentReferenceHashMap(ReferenceMap.HARD,
> > ReferenceMap.WEAK);
>
> This maps a hard Class ref to a weak ClassLoader ref.  Given that a
> Class references its ClassLoader (or is supposed to -- again I wonder
> what the hell the JVM you're using is doing where
> Class.getClassLoader is taking a long time), no entries will ever
> expire from this map.
>
> Have you tried running your benchmarks without all the caching of
> assignables and classloaders and hashcodes (all Class methods, btw)
> and just the other improvements?  Or with any other JVM?
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
> information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
> entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
> and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
> by email and then delete it.
>

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