You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Александр Меньшиков <sh...@gmail.com> on 2017/11/29 09:35:29 UTC
IGNITE-4908 is ready for review (Ignite.reentrantLock looks much
slower than IgniteCache.lock)
Igniters,
I’ve implemented new fast reentrant lock within an issue[1].
Could someone review prepared PR [2, 3, 4]?
Some details are described below.
The main idea:
Current locks implementation is based on shared states in a cache, while
the new lock uses IgniteCache#invoke* methods to update shared state
atomically. New lock implementation doesn’t use a continuous query, so the
cache became atomic now.
New lock implementation has two types: fair and unfair, split into
different classes for performance reasons.
Some benchmarks results (hardware: Core i5 (2 gen) + 6GB RAM):
Speed up: single thread + fair: 21.9x (1 node), 3.4x (2 nodes), 9.9x (5
nodes), 17.9x (10 nodes)
Speed up: single thread + unfair: 22.4x (1 node), 3.2x (2 nodes), 8.0x (5
nodes), 19.0x (10 nodes)
Speed up: multi-threads + fair: 3.9x (1 n,2 t), 3.5x (1 n,10t), 13.5x (5
n,2t), 15.0x (5n, 10t)
Speed up: multi-threads + unfair: 33.5x (1 n,2t), 210x (1 n,10t), 318x (5
n,2t), 389x (5n, 10t)
Benchmarks’ summary:
1) The unfair lock has a local reentrant lock which is used for local
synchronization as a guard before the shared state. This allows reaching
performance close to a local reentrant lock.
2) One server node can be a primary one for the shared state, this gives us
a performance boost on one node only.
3) Speedup grows with a number of nodes.
[1] JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4908
[2] PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2360
[3] Upsource review:
https://reviews.ignite.apache.org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-248
[4] Team City:
https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=Ignite20Tests&branch_Ignite20Tests=pull%2F2360%2Fhead
Re: IGNITE-4908 is ready for review (Ignite.reentrantLock looks much
slower than IgniteCache.lock)
Posted by Anton Vinogradov <av...@gridgain.com>.
Nikolay,
Could you please review changes?
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 3:23 PM, Александр Меньшиков <sh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi, guys! I'm waiting (more than 2 months) for CR ignite-4908 (
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4908 all links inside). It's
> about Ignite.reentrantlock.
>
> 2017-11-29 12:35 GMT+03:00 Александр Меньшиков <sh...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Igniters,
>>
>> I’ve implemented new fast reentrant lock within an issue[1].
>>
>> Could someone review prepared PR [2, 3, 4]?
>>
>> Some details are described below.
>>
>> The main idea:
>>
>> Current locks implementation is based on shared states in a cache, while
>> the new lock uses IgniteCache#invoke* methods to update shared state
>> atomically. New lock implementation doesn’t use a continuous query, so the
>> cache became atomic now.
>>
>> New lock implementation has two types: fair and unfair, split into
>> different classes for performance reasons.
>>
>> Some benchmarks results (hardware: Core i5 (2 gen) + 6GB RAM):
>>
>> Speed up: single thread + fair: 21.9x (1 node), 3.4x (2 nodes), 9.9x (5
>> nodes), 17.9x (10 nodes)
>>
>> Speed up: single thread + unfair: 22.4x (1 node), 3.2x (2 nodes), 8.0x (5
>> nodes), 19.0x (10 nodes)
>>
>> Speed up: multi-threads + fair: 3.9x (1 n,2 t), 3.5x (1 n,10t), 13.5x
>> (5 n,2t), 15.0x (5n, 10t)
>>
>> Speed up: multi-threads + unfair: 33.5x (1 n,2t), 210x (1 n,10t), 318x
>> (5 n,2t), 389x (5n, 10t)
>>
>> Benchmarks’ summary:
>>
>> 1) The unfair lock has a local reentrant lock which is used for local
>> synchronization as a guard before the shared state. This allows reaching
>> performance close to a local reentrant lock.
>>
>> 2) One server node can be a primary one for the shared state, this gives
>> us a performance boost on one node only.
>>
>> 3) Speedup grows with a number of nodes.
>>
>>
>> [1] JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4908
>>
>> [2] PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2360
>>
>> [3] Upsource review: https://reviews.ignite.apache.
>> org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-248
>>
>> [4] Team City: https://ci.ignite.apache.org/p
>> roject.html?projectId=Ignite20Tests&branch_Ignite20Tests=
>> pull%2F2360%2Fhead
>>
>
>
Re: IGNITE-4908 is ready for review (Ignite.reentrantLock looks much
slower than IgniteCache.lock)
Posted by Александр Меньшиков <sh...@gmail.com>.
Hi, guys! I'm waiting (more than 2 months) for CR ignite-4908 (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4908 all links inside). It's
about Ignite.reentrantlock.
2017-11-29 12:35 GMT+03:00 Александр Меньшиков <sh...@gmail.com>:
> Igniters,
>
> I’ve implemented new fast reentrant lock within an issue[1].
>
> Could someone review prepared PR [2, 3, 4]?
>
> Some details are described below.
>
> The main idea:
>
> Current locks implementation is based on shared states in a cache, while
> the new lock uses IgniteCache#invoke* methods to update shared state
> atomically. New lock implementation doesn’t use a continuous query, so the
> cache became atomic now.
>
> New lock implementation has two types: fair and unfair, split into
> different classes for performance reasons.
>
> Some benchmarks results (hardware: Core i5 (2 gen) + 6GB RAM):
>
> Speed up: single thread + fair: 21.9x (1 node), 3.4x (2 nodes), 9.9x (5
> nodes), 17.9x (10 nodes)
>
> Speed up: single thread + unfair: 22.4x (1 node), 3.2x (2 nodes), 8.0x (5
> nodes), 19.0x (10 nodes)
>
> Speed up: multi-threads + fair: 3.9x (1 n,2 t), 3.5x (1 n,10t), 13.5x (5
> n,2t), 15.0x (5n, 10t)
>
> Speed up: multi-threads + unfair: 33.5x (1 n,2t), 210x (1 n,10t), 318x (5
> n,2t), 389x (5n, 10t)
>
> Benchmarks’ summary:
>
> 1) The unfair lock has a local reentrant lock which is used for local
> synchronization as a guard before the shared state. This allows reaching
> performance close to a local reentrant lock.
>
> 2) One server node can be a primary one for the shared state, this gives
> us a performance boost on one node only.
>
> 3) Speedup grows with a number of nodes.
>
>
> [1] JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-4908
>
> [2] PR: https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/2360
>
> [3] Upsource review: https://reviews.ignite.apache.
> org/ignite/review/IGNT-CR-248
>
> [4] Team City: https://ci.ignite.apache.org/project.html?projectId=
> Ignite20Tests&branch_Ignite20Tests=pull%2F2360%2Fhead
>