Optimize Netty Frame Decoding #44664
Merged
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
* We should not create a new wrapper object if there's no bytes in the `ByteBuf` * We should not create a new wrapped `ByteBuf` if it can't contain a message anyway because it doesn't even have enough bytes for a header left
original-brownbear
added
>non-issue
:Distributed/Network
|
Pinging @elastic/es-distributed |
| @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ | |||
| @Override | |||
| protected void decode(ChannelHandlerContext ctx, ByteBuf in, List<Object> out) throws Exception { | |||
| try { | |||
| boolean continueDecode = true; | |||
| boolean continueDecode = in.readableBytes() >= HEADER_SIZE; | |||
| while (continueDecode) { | |||
| int messageLength = TcpTransport.readMessageLength(Netty4Utils.toBytesReference(in)); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
At the cost of some duplication (between Netty and NIO impls.) we could just remove creating the wrapping BytesReference just for reading the length here as well. I'd look into that in a follow up.
ywelsch
suggested changes
Jul 30, 2019
...rt-netty4/src/main/java/org/elasticsearch/transport/netty4/Netty4SizeHeaderFrameDecoder.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
@ywelsch fixed :) |
|
thanks @ywelsch ! |
original-brownbear
added a commit
to original-brownbear/elasticsearch
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2019
* We should not create a new wrapper object if there's no bytes in the `ByteBuf` * We should not create a new wrapped `ByteBuf` if it can't contain a message anyway because it doesn't even have enough bytes for a header left
original-brownbear
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 30, 2019
jkakavas
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2019
* We should not create a new wrapper object if there's no bytes in the `ByteBuf` * We should not create a new wrapped `ByteBuf` if it can't contain a message anyway because it doesn't even have enough bytes for a header left
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.
ByteBufByteBufif it can't contain a message anyway because it doesn't even have enough bytes for a header leftByteBufwe still ran the decode loop once again (because of the missing update tocontinueDecodethat I now added) so without this change every message (if it's the only buffered message) cost an additional object here