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
