[jira] [Reopened] (HBASE-14940) Make our unsafe based ops more safe

["Anoop Sam John (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14940?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Anoop Sam John reopened HBASE-14940:
------------------------------------

Sorry for the trouble..  Reopen issue for the 0.98 addendum

> Make our unsafe based ops more safe
> -----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-14940
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14940
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Anoop Sam John
>            Assignee: Anoop Sam John
>             Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.2.0, 1.3.0, 1.1.3, 0.98.17, 1.0.4
>
>         Attachments: HBASE-14940.patch, HBASE-14940_addendum_0.98.patch, HBASE-14940_branch-1.patch, HBASE-14940_branch-1.patch, HBASE-14940_branch-1.patch, HBASE-14940_branch-1.patch, HBASE-14940_v2.patch
>
>
> Thanks for the nice findings [~ikeda]
> This jira solves 3 issues with Unsafe operations and ByteBufferUtils
> 1. We can do sun unsafe based reads and writes iff unsafe package is available and underlying platform is having unaligned-access capability. But we were missing the second check
> 2. Java NIO is doing a chunk based copy while doing Unsafe copyMemory. The max chunk size is 1 MB. This is done for "A limit is imposed to allow for safepoint polling during a large copy" as mentioned in comments in Bits.java.  We are also going to do same way
> 3. In ByteBufferUtils, when Unsafe is not available and ByteBuffers are off heap, we were doing byte by byte operation (read/copy). We can avoid this and do better way.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)