Hi Phil,

Where are we on a 2.12.0 release candidate?

Gary

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 10:33 PM Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK, I found the source of the performance hit.  In the POOL-411 changes, we
> had inadvertently forced every register to acquire a write lock from the
> keylock.  I think I also finally definitively fixed the root issue there.
> The tricky bit about the numInterested tracking is that the counters are
> attached to the ObjectDeques, which can be replaced.  If this happens while
> waiting for a write lock in either register or deregister, the code can end
> up updating the counter on a pool that has been replaced.  I added checks
> to trap deregistration of a null pool (should never happen) and followed
> Sebb's suggestion to add a check for numInterested going negative.  The
> accounting setup is very efficient, but tricky to maintain.  For 3.0, we
> might consider moving numInterested tracking to a hashmap.  For 2.x, I
> think the setup is fixed now and performance is the same as earlier
> versions.  Soak tests look good.
>
> One last thing I would like to do before we cut 2.12.0:
>
> We are going to be making incompatible changes in 3.0 and I don't think we
> need to telegraph all of the API changes via deprecations in 2.x - most
> notably the recent method name changes of the form s/Time/Duration.  I
> understand the rationale for these changes, but they make the 2.x code very
> messy with double deprecations - first from the "millis" methods and then
> from "Time" to "Duration."  I think it would be better to keep the existing
> deprecations for the "millis" methods, but drop the new "Duration" ones and
> remove deprecations for the ones they replace.  I can see the argument that
> it is better to tell users now, but that takes away flexibility in 3.0 and
> makes the API look very confusing with so many methods that do the same
> thing.  Any objections ?
>
> Phil
>
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2023 at 3:59 PM Phil Steitz <phil.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I have run my first round of soak and performance tests on what is now in
> > the 2.x branch.  Good news is the code looks stable.  Not so good news is
> > it appears that GKOP performance has taken a material hit vs 2.11 and
> > earlier versions.  I need to confirm this via more targeted tests and if it
> > turns out not to be real, figure out what is causing it.  Hopefully I will
> > get to this done in the next few days.
> >
> > Phil
> >

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org

Reply via email to