HBASE-22802 Avoid temp ByteBuffer allocation in FileIOEngine#read #467
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
saintstack
reviewed
Aug 11, 2019
| @@ -429,7 +429,9 @@ private void cacheBlockWithWaitInternal(BlockCacheKey cacheKey, Cacheable cached | |||
| if (!cacheEnabled) { | |||
| return; | |||
| } | |||
| LOG.trace("Caching key={}, item={}", cacheKey, cachedItem); | |||
| if (LOG.isTraceEnabled()) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Don't need this if LOG.isTraceEnabled when using this logging form with the '{}' (Internally it does this test).
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
openinx
reviewed
Aug 12, 2019
| @@ -475,6 +486,32 @@ public static int channelRead(ReadableByteChannel channel, ByteBuffer buf) throw | |||
| return (nBytes > 0) ? nBytes : ret; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| public static int fileRead(FileChannel channel, ByteBuffer buf, long offset) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks like we could make some abstraction between the existed channelRead(...) and the newly introduced fileRead (...) ? Similar with the ByteBufferArray#read & ByteBufferArray#write.. Please take a look.
| break; | ||
| } | ||
| } finally { | ||
| buf.limit(originalLimit); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Only reset the limit ? should we also reset the position ?
| @@ -1086,6 +1087,48 @@ public int read(ReadableByteChannel channel) throws IOException { | |||
| return total; | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| @Override | |||
| public int read(FileChannel channel, long offset) throws IOException { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should also make the abstraction between MultiByteBuff#read and MultiByteBuff#write ? As said above.
| @@ -429,7 +429,9 @@ private void cacheBlockWithWaitInternal(BlockCacheKey cacheKey, Cacheable cached | |||
| if (!cacheEnabled) { | |||
| return; | |||
| } | |||
| LOG.trace("Caching key={}, item={}", cacheKey, cachedItem); | |||
| if (LOG.isTraceEnabled()) { | |||
| @@ -502,8 +504,10 @@ public Cacheable getBlock(BlockCacheKey key, boolean caching, boolean repeat, | |||
| // block will use the refCnt of bucketEntry, which means if two HFileBlock mapping to | |||
| // the same BucketEntry, then all of the three will share the same refCnt. | |||
| Cacheable cachedBlock = ioEngine.read(bucketEntry); | |||
| // RPC start to reference, so retain here. | |||
| cachedBlock.retain(); | |||
| if (ioEngine.usesSharedMemory()) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
One big concern here: now for exclusive memory IOEngine, the refCnt value of all bucketEntry will be 1, means the reference from BucketCache, no RPC reference. Then I think the BucketCache's eviction policy would always evict those blocks despite that the RPC is still using the block, not say the memory leak issue , but the eviction policy is evicting those RPC referring blocks (violate the LRU ? )....
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The eviction policy will compare BucketEntry with it’s accessCounter, so this will not violate the LRU?
| return wrapAsCacheable(ByteBuff.wrap(buffers, this.refCnt)); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| Cacheable wrapAsCacheable(ByteBuff buf) throws IOException { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's a good thing, make the wrapAsCacheable into two methods. the SharedIOEngine use the former one, and the ExclusiveIOEngine use the later one. Good.
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
🎊 +1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
…sabled table (apache#465) Signed-off-by: Stack <stack@apache.org>
…ck chore (apache#466) Signed-off-by: Guanghao Zhang <zghao@apache.org>
apache#469) Signed-off-by: Duo Zhang <zhangduo@apache.org>
Signed-off-by: Wellington Chevreuil <wchevreuil@apache.org>
…pache#390) Signed-off-by: Andrew Purtell <apurtell@apache.org>
Signed-off-by: stack <stack@apache.org>
Signed-off-by: stack <stack@apache.org>
Signed-off-by: stack <stack@apache.org> Signed-off-by: Jan Hentschel <jan.hentschel@ultratendency.com>
Signed-off-by: stack <stack@apache.org>
Signed-off-by: stack <stack@apache.org>
Signed-off-by: Duo Zhang <zhangduo@apache.org>
|
💔 -1 overall
This message was automatically generated. |
|
sorry, do the wrong rebase, close this pr first |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
No description provided.