Fix of high cpu usage occurence replicated in Broadcom based on GIT issue #282 #326

jandadav · 2019-06-26T13:38:36Z

Solution is to switch LatencyUtils.useActualTime off, as described in javadoc of TimeServices
class

/**

Provide an API for time-related service, such as getting the current time and waiting for
a given period of time. By default, these services are provided by actual time services
in the JDK (i.e. System.nanoTime(), System.currentTimeMillis(), Thread.sleep(), and
java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.parkNanos()). However, if the property
LatencyUtils.useActualTime is set to "false", TimeServers will only move the notion
of time in response to calls to the #setCurrentTime() method.

*/

Signed-off-by: janda06 david.janda@broadcom.com

codecov · 2019-06-26T13:56:32Z

Codecov Report

Merging #326 into master will decrease coverage by 0.03%.
The diff coverage is 50%.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master     #326      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     70.02%   69.98%   -0.04%     
  Complexity       12       12              
============================================
  Files           237      238       +1     
  Lines          4540     4548       +8     
  Branches        574      574              
============================================
+ Hits           3179     3183       +4     
- Misses         1203     1207       +4     
  Partials        158      158

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ	Complexity Δ
...va/com/ca/mfaas/product/constants/CoreService.java	`100% <ø> (ø)`	`0 <0> (?)`
...ava/com/ca/mfaas/product/logging/UseridFilter.java	`100% <ø> (ø)`	`0 <0> (?)`
.../ca/mfaas/product/registry/ApplicationWrapper.java	`100% <ø> (ø)`	`0 <0> (?)`
...as/product/service/ServiceStartupEventHandler.java	`50% <ø> (ø)`	`0 <0> (?)`
...as/product/routing/transform/TransformService.java	`100% <ø> (ø)`	`0 <0> (?)`
...main/java/com/ca/mfaas/product/utils/UrlUtils.java	`76.92% <ø> (ø)`	`0 <0> (?)`
...egistry/DiscoveryServiceNotAvailableException.java	`0% <ø> (ø)`	`0 <0> (?)`
...faas/product/security/WebServerSecurityConfig.java	`100% <ø> (ø)`	`0 <0> (?)`
.../routing/transform/URLTransformationException.java	`50% <ø> (ø)`	`0 <0> (?)`
...oduct/registry/CannotRegisterServiceException.java	`0% <ø> (ø)`	`0 <0> (?)`
... and 11 more

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update aaf4053...afdc01d. Read the comment docs.

jandadav · 2019-07-01T08:01:21Z

I have reworked the solution based on the feedback from Jirka and Lena

common-service-core/src/main/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer.java

JirkaAichler

Few minor issues.

common-service-core/src/main/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer.java

JirkaAichler · 2019-07-02T08:17:12Z

common-service-core/src/main/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer.java

+ * This class has been
+ */
+public class LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer implements ApplicationContextInitializer<ConfigurableApplicationContext> {
+    private final String PROPERTY_KEY = "LatencyUtils.useActualTime";


Please make this static.

JirkaAichler · 2019-07-02T08:23:32Z

common-service-core/src/main/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer.java

+ *
+ * This class has been
+ */
+public class LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer implements ApplicationContextInitializer<ConfigurableApplicationContext> {


Try using @nonnull annotation

Not @NotNull, it's @Nullable should be, because, you sending to this method null in test. So, you have two options: create application context object and send to this method, or add this @Nullable annotation. I would suggest to create some simple common context for this test and use it, for example:
private final ConfigurableApplicationContext ctx = new GenericApplicationContext();

P.s.: wrong line, the correct is 25 :)

common-service-core/src/main/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer.java

arxioly · 2019-07-02T09:33:43Z

common-service-core/src/main/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer.java

+ *
+ * This class has been
+ */
+public class LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer implements ApplicationContextInitializer<ConfigurableApplicationContext> {


Not @NotNull, it's @Nullable should be, because, you sending to this method null in test. So, you have two options: create application context object and send to this method, or add this @Nullable annotation. I would suggest to create some simple common context for this test and use it, for example:
private final ConfigurableApplicationContext ctx = new GenericApplicationContext();

P.s.: wrong line, the correct is 25 :)

arxioly · 2019-07-02T09:34:56Z

common-service-core/src/main/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer.java

+    @Override
+    public void initialize(ConfigurableApplicationContext applicationContext) {
+        if (System.getProperties().getProperty(PROPERTY_KEY) == null)
+            System.getProperties().setProperty(PROPERTY_KEY, "false");


Please, make the block with {}.

arxioly · 2019-07-02T09:52:17Z

...on-service-core/src/test/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializerTest.java

+        assertNull( System.getProperties().getProperty(PROPERTY_KEY) );
+
+        LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer latencyUtilsConfigInitializer = new LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer();
+        latencyUtilsConfigInitializer.initialize(null);


Here is that null, and the same in the test below.

arxioly · 2019-07-02T09:55:30Z

...on-service-core/src/test/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializerTest.java

+        LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer latencyUtilsConfigInitializer = new LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer();
+        latencyUtilsConfigInitializer.initialize(null);
+
+        assertEquals(System.getProperties().getProperty(PROPERTY_KEY),"false");


Not correct order, "false" - is expected value, and should be before actual System.getProperties().getProperty(PROPERTY_KEY)

arxioly · 2019-07-02T09:59:15Z

...on-service-core/src/test/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializerTest.java

+        System.getProperties().remove(PROPERTY_KEY);
+        String value = "RandomValue";
+        System.getProperties().setProperty(PROPERTY_KEY, value);
+        assertEquals( System.getProperties().getProperty(PROPERTY_KEY), value );


The same as above: value - is expected value and should be before actual.

arxioly · 2019-07-02T09:59:30Z

...on-service-core/src/test/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializerTest.java

+        LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer latencyUtilsConfigInitializer = new LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer();
+        latencyUtilsConfigInitializer.initialize(null);
+
+        assertEquals( System.getProperties().getProperty(PROPERTY_KEY), value );


The same as above.

ilkinabdullayev

Hi guys,
I just made a quick review.

common-service-core/src/main/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer.java

ilkinabdullayev · 2019-07-02T23:56:09Z

...on-service-core/src/test/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializerTest.java

+    }
+
+    @Test
+    public void ShouldNotSetSystemPropertyWhenPropertyIsSetFromBefore() {


The method name is starting with an upper character. Please change to a small one. shouldNotSetSystemPropertyWhenPropertyIsSetFromBefore

ilkinabdullayev · 2019-07-02T23:56:21Z

...on-service-core/src/test/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializerTest.java

+    private final String PROPERTY_KEY = "LatencyUtils.useActualTime";
+
+    @Test
+    public void ShouldSetSystemPropertyWhenPropertyNotSet() {


The method name is starting with an upper character. Please change to a small one. shouldNotSetSystemPropertyWhenPropertyIsSetFromBefore

JirkaAichler

Minor detail ...

JirkaAichler · 2019-07-03T12:20:01Z

gateway-common/src/main/java/com/ca/mfaas/product/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer.java

+public class LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer implements ApplicationContextInitializer<ConfigurableApplicationContext> {
+    private static final String PROPERTY_KEY = "LatencyUtils.useActualTime";
+    @Override
+    public void initialize(@NonNull ConfigurableApplicationContext applicationContext) {


Please change it from @NonNull to @Nonnull ... it will get rid of the warning

JirkaAichler

Thank you for a great job!

arxioly

Super! Thanks!

…ssue #282 Solution is to switch LatencyUtils.useActualTime off, as described in javadoc of TimeServices class /** * Provide an API for time-related service, such as getting the current time and waiting for * a given period of time. By default, these services are provided by actual time services * in the JDK (i.e. System.nanoTime(), System.currentTimeMillis(), Thread.sleep(), and * java.util.concurrent.locks.LockSupport.parkNanos()). However, if the property * LatencyUtils.useActualTime is set to "false", TimeServers will only move the notion * of time in response to calls to the #setCurrentTime() method. * */ Signed-off-by: janda06 <david.janda@broadcom.com>

Signed-off-by: janda06 <david.janda@broadcom.com>

suppressed security module as there are some classes that triggered the check and this module is soon to be decommissioned changed test method names moved the classes to gateway-common Signed-off-by: janda06 <david.janda@broadcom.com>

Moved gateway-common to apiml-common Signed-off-by: janda06 <david.janda@broadcom.com>

jandadav · 2019-07-08T09:52:03Z

Rebased on master, please re-review. Thank you

taban03

Good job David!

zowe-robot added the under CA testing label Jun 26, 2019

cZikos self-requested a review June 27, 2019 08:29

zowe-robot added failed CA tests and removed under CA testing labels Jun 27, 2019

cZikos previously approved these changes Jun 27, 2019

View reviewed changes

zowe-robot added passed CA tests and removed failed CA tests labels Jun 28, 2019

ilkinabdullayev dismissed cZikos’s stale review via c43ec67 July 1, 2019 07:58

ilkinabdullayev force-pushed the private/janda06/issue282HighCpu branch from 404ec5a to c43ec67 Compare July 1, 2019 07:58

zowe-robot added ready for CA testing and removed ready for CA testing labels Jul 1, 2019

cZikos self-requested a review July 1, 2019 13:19

petr-galik requested review from arxioly and JirkaAichler and removed request for cZikos July 1, 2019 13:19

JirkaAichler reviewed Jul 2, 2019

View reviewed changes

common-service-core/src/main/java/com/ca/mfaas/monitoring/LatencyUtilsConfigInitializer.java Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

JirkaAichler requested changes Jul 2, 2019

View reviewed changes

arxioly reviewed Jul 2, 2019

View reviewed changes

zowe-robot added ready for CA testing and removed ready for CA testing labels Jul 2, 2019

ilkinabdullayev reviewed Jul 3, 2019

View reviewed changes

zowe-robot added ready for CA testing and removed ready for CA testing labels Jul 3, 2019

JirkaAichler requested changes Jul 3, 2019

View reviewed changes

zowe-robot added passed CA tests and removed under CA testing labels Jul 3, 2019

JirkaAichler previously approved these changes Jul 4, 2019

View reviewed changes

arxioly previously approved these changes Jul 4, 2019

View reviewed changes

jandadav added 4 commits July 8, 2019 11:14

added arch. decision and incorporated suggestions

e0004e9

Signed-off-by: janda06 <david.janda@broadcom.com>

added check rule for method names

c92b8a4

suppressed security module as there are some classes that triggered the check and this module is soon to be decommissioned changed test method names moved the classes to gateway-common Signed-off-by: janda06 <david.janda@broadcom.com>

fixed @nonnull annotation

afdc01d

Moved gateway-common to apiml-common Signed-off-by: janda06 <david.janda@broadcom.com>

ilkinabdullayev dismissed stale reviews from arxioly and JirkaAichler via afdc01d July 8, 2019 09:50

ilkinabdullayev force-pushed the private/janda06/issue282HighCpu branch from 55f54e7 to afdc01d Compare July 8, 2019 09:50

zowe-robot added ready for CA testing and removed ready for CA testing labels Jul 8, 2019

petr-galik requested a review from taban03 July 8, 2019 10:54

taban03 approved these changes Jul 8, 2019

View reviewed changes

arxioly approved these changes Jul 8, 2019

View reviewed changes

arxioly merged commit 8d49ee9 into master Jul 8, 2019

delete-merged-branch bot deleted the private/janda06/issue282HighCpu branch July 8, 2019 13:56

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix of high cpu usage occurence replicated in Broadcom based on GIT issue #282 #326

Fix of high cpu usage occurence replicated in Broadcom based on GIT issue #282 #326

jandadav commented Jun 26, 2019

codecov bot commented Jun 26, 2019 •

edited

jandadav commented Jul 1, 2019

JirkaAichler left a comment

JirkaAichler Jul 2, 2019

JirkaAichler Jul 2, 2019

arxioly Jul 2, 2019 •

edited

arxioly Jul 2, 2019 •

edited

arxioly Jul 2, 2019

arxioly Jul 2, 2019

arxioly Jul 2, 2019

arxioly Jul 2, 2019

arxioly Jul 2, 2019

ilkinabdullayev left a comment

ilkinabdullayev Jul 2, 2019

ilkinabdullayev Jul 2, 2019

JirkaAichler left a comment

JirkaAichler Jul 3, 2019 •

edited

JirkaAichler left a comment

arxioly left a comment

jandadav commented Jul 8, 2019

taban03 left a comment

Fix of high cpu usage occurence replicated in Broadcom based on GIT issue #282 #326

Fix of high cpu usage occurence replicated in Broadcom based on GIT issue #282 #326

Conversation

jandadav commented Jun 26, 2019

codecov bot commented Jun 26, 2019 • edited

Codecov Report

jandadav commented Jul 1, 2019

JirkaAichler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arxioly Jul 2, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arxioly Jul 2, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ilkinabdullayev left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JirkaAichler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JirkaAichler Jul 3, 2019 • edited

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

JirkaAichler left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

arxioly left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

jandadav commented Jul 8, 2019

taban03 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

codecov bot commented Jun 26, 2019 •

edited

arxioly Jul 2, 2019 •

edited

arxioly Jul 2, 2019 •

edited

JirkaAichler Jul 3, 2019 •

edited