mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "David M. Lloyd" <david.ll...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: Interesting direct buffer vs heap buffer micro benchmark
Date Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:19:42 GMT
On 04/07/2008 09:11 AM, "이희승 (Trustin Lee) <trustin@gmail.com>" wrote:
> David M. Lloyd wrote:
>> On 04/07/2008 02:05 AM, "이희승 (Trustin Lee) <trustin@gmail.com>" wrote:
>>> We could create a big read buffer and fire a messageReceived event with
>>> its sliced part, but we still have an issue with figuring out what part
>>> of the read buffer is being referenced by user.  We can be notified when
>>> the slice is garbage collected using PhantomReference, but its
>>> performance is poor according to my test.  Of course, again, we can ask
>>> a user to notify the I/O processor when he or she doesn't need it
>>> anymore, but it's inconvenient and error-prone.
>> Trustin, what if you only allocate large buffers, and then hand out
>> slices to it?  Rather than using PhantomReferences to track the each
>> slice, you could track the original buffer itself.  Once the original
>> buffer is no longer referenced, you could then create new slices and
>> hand them out.
> 
> How do you determine if the original buffer is no longer referenced?  If
> we know that, we can simply reuse the original buffer and that would be
> the most efficient implementation.

The same way you already were - with a PhantomReference or similar.  I'm 
guessing that by having one PhantomReference to many user buffers, maybe 
the performance impact won't be so significant.

- DML

Mime
View raw message