Optimize synchronized in PartitionedDispatcher #8640
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
Even if the `PartitionedDispatcher.populatedPartitions()` is fast, in-memory, non-blocking operation, its active call from the `dispatch()` on every message sent to the channel may pin the virtual thread. * Optimize the `populatedPartitions()` for double `if` where we will step into a `synchronized` block only for first several concurrent messages **Cherry-pick to `6.1.x`**
artembilan
force-pushed
the
PartitionedDispatcher_optimize_synchronized
branch
from
c633d97
to
f164fab
Compare
garyrussell
suggested changes
Jun 8, 2023
| @@ -151,10 +151,16 @@ public boolean dispatch(Message<?> message) { | |||
| return partitionDispatcher.dispatch(message); | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| private synchronized void populatedPartitions() { | |||
| private void populatedPartitions() { | |||
| if (this.partitions.isEmpty()) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You will probably need a // NOSONAR here (and other unsynchronized uses) to prevent Sonar from complaining.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure how that suppose to complain since this property is final.
Plus our Sonar instance it out of order for a while.
I'd prefer to look into this when we come back into business with Sonar and it indeed will complain respectively.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think being final matters, I believe Sonar will report a smell for inconsistent synchronization of fields.
garyrussell
approved these changes
Jun 8, 2023
garyrussell
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 8, 2023
Even if the `PartitionedDispatcher.populatedPartitions()` is fast, in-memory, non-blocking operation, its active call from the `dispatch()` on every message sent to the channel may pin the virtual thread. * Optimize the `populatedPartitions()` for double `if` where we will step into a `synchronized` block only for first several concurrent messages **Cherry-pick to `6.1.x`**
|
...and cherry picked as 0350a64 |
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.
Even if the
PartitionedDispatcher.populatedPartitions()is fast, in-memory, non-blocking operation, its active call from thedispatch()on every message sent to the channel may pin the virtual thread.populatedPartitions()for doubleifwhere we will step into asynchronizedblock only for first several concurrent messagesCherry-pick to
6.1.x