openjpa-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kevin Sutter (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] Closed: (OPENJPA-141) More performance improvements (in response to changes for OPENJPA-138)
Date Tue, 31 Jul 2007 18:56:53 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-141?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Kevin Sutter closed OPENJPA-141.
--------------------------------


> More performance improvements (in response to changes for OPENJPA-138)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OPENJPA-141
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OPENJPA-141
>             Project: OpenJPA
>          Issue Type: Sub-task
>          Components: jpa
>            Reporter: Kevin Sutter
>            Assignee: Kevin Sutter
>             Fix For: 0.9.7
>
>         Attachments: openjpa-141.txt, openjpa-141.txt
>
>
> Abe's response to my committed changes for OPENJPA-138.  I will be working with Abe and
my performance team to work through these issues...
> > ======================================================================
> > ========
> > --- 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?

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message