river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org>
Subject Re: Request for testing help
Date Wed, 22 Sep 2010 14:46:53 GMT
YES, PLEASE! Code reviews are a good thing in any case, and this is my 
first open source, Apache, or River coding effort, so there may be style 

My big picture objective is to improve the scalability of TaskManager, 
as a response to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/RIVER-344.

It was doing a lot of O(n) operations, mainly due to the use of an 
ArrayList to represent essentially a FIFO. Those O(n) operations are 
doubly bad news for scalability because they are done under 
synchronization. I've reduced many of them to O(log n) by replacing the 
ArrayList with a TreeSet and PriorityBlockingQueue, both in order of 
arrival, the same order as the original ArrayList.

I may implement finer scale optimizations later, such as replacing 
synchronization with atomic operations. However, in my experience it is 
important to get the data structures and algorithms right first.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, even with Jonathan's heroic 
test-enabling efforts, I don't think we have a good TaskManager 
scalability test, or a test of the concurrent behavior of its clients.


On 9/22/2010 7:16 AM, Tom Hobbs wrote:
> I'm happy to do some code reviews.  I can't run any tests though, I don't
> have any access to any Windows machines.
> Let me know if this would be useful, and I'll check those revisions out.
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:33 PM, Patricia Shanahan<pats@acm.org>  wrote:
>> I'm testing my new TaskManager the , but I have some anomalies. It would
>> help me to get some more testing of
>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/river/jtsk/skunk/patsTaskManagerdone in
other WindowsXP environments.
>> Both the head revision and revision  998737 need to be tested. Revision
>> 998737 is the one I plan to merge into the trunk. It changes the interface
>> between TaskManager and its callers, with minimal changes to TaskManager.
>> It is important that it be tested widely, because it affects a lot of
>> critical classes, and would be difficult to back out.
>> The head revision drops in a revised TaskManager. It should be easy to back
>> out if necessary.
>> Patricia

View raw message