ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nikolay Izhikov <nizhi...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Apache Ignite 2.9.0 RELEASE [Time, Scope, Manager]
Date Tue, 01 Sep 2020 09:13:03 GMT
Hello, Igniters.

Alexey, please, include one more Python thin client fix [1] into the 2.9 release
It fixes kinda major issue - "Python client returns fields in wrong order since the 2 row
when fields_count>10"

[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12809
[2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/38025ee4167f05eaa2d6a2c5c2ab70c83a462cfc

> 31 авг. 2020 г., в 19:23, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> написал(а):
> 
> Alexey, thanks, got it. I am not sure we can optimize anything out of the
> message factory with suppliers (at least I have no ideas right now), so
> most likely the only move here is to switch back to the switch approach
> somehow preserving the metrics part. Probably, inlining the Ignite messages
> to the IgniteMessageFactoryImpl should do the trick. Let me explore the
> code a bit.
> 
> P.S. I am surprised by the impact this part makes for the performance.
> Message creation is indeed on the hot path, but a single virtual call
> should not make that much of a difference given the amount of other work
> happening during the message processing.
> 
> пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 18:33, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.alex@gmail.com>:
> 
>> Alexey, sorry, I wrongly interpreted our benchmark results. Actually, we
>> were looking for a drop using bi-sect in the range between e6a7f93 (first
>> commit in the 2.9 branch after 2.8 branch cut) and 6592dfa5 (last commit in
>> the 2.9 branch). And we found these two problematic commits.
>> 
>> Perhaps only IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) is responsible for a drop between
>> 2.8.1 and 2.9 (we have benchmarked 2.8.1 vs 2.9 with reverted IGNITE-13060
>> now and performance looks the same)
>> 
>> Ticket IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring) is not related to drop
>> between 2.8.1 and 2.9, but still has some performance problem, and we can
>> win back IGNITE-13060 drop by this ticket.
>> 
>> Do we need more investigation on IGNITE-13060 or we leave it as is?
>> 
>> What should we do with IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring)?
>> 
>> пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 13:25, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>>> :
>> 
>>> Alexey,
>>> 
>>> While investigating, I found that IGNITE-12568 has an incorrect fix
>>> version and is actually present in ignite-2.8.1 branch [1], so it cannot be
>>> the source of the drop against 2.8.1.
>>> 
>>> P.S. Looks like we need to enforce a more accurate work with fix versions
>>> or develop some sort of tooling to verify the fix versions.
>>> 
>>> --AG
>>> 
>>> [1]
>>> https://github.com/apache/ignite/commit/3e492bd23851856bbd0385c6a419892d0bba2a34
>>> 
>>> пн, 31 авг. 2020 г. в 12:42, Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>>>> :
>>> 
>>>> пт, 28 авг. 2020 г. в 11:16, Alex Plehanov <plehanov.alex@gmail.com>:
>>>> 
>>>>> Guys,
>>>>> 
>>>>> We have benchmarked 2.9 without IGNITE-13060 and IGNITE-12568 (reverted
>>>>> it
>>>>> locally) and got the same performance as on 2.8.1
>>>>> 
>>>>> IGNITE-13060 (Tracing) - some code was added to hot paths, to trace
>>>>> these
>>>>> hot paths, it's clear why we have performance drop here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> IGNITE-12568 (MessageFactory refactoring) - switch/case block was
>>>>> refactored to an array of message suppliers. The message factory is on
>>>>> the
>>>>> hot path, which explains why this commit has an impact on total
>>>>> performance.
>>>>> I've checked JIT assembly output, done some JMH microbenchmarks, and
>>>>> found
>>>>> that old implementation of MessageFactory.create() about 30-35% faster
>>>>> than
>>>>> the new one. The reason - approach with switch/case can effectively
>>>>> inline
>>>>> message creation code, but with an array of suppliers relatively heavy
>>>>> "invokeinterface" cannot be skipped. I've tried to rewrite the code
>>>>> using
>>>>> an abstract class for suppliers instead of an interface (to
>>>>> replace "invokeinterface" with the "invokevirtual"), but it gives back
>>>>> only
>>>>> 10% of method performance and in this case, code looks ugly (lambdas
>>>>> can't
>>>>> be used). Currently, I can't find any more ways to optimize the current
>>>>> approach (except return to the switch/case block). Andrey Gura, as the
>>>>> author of IGNITE-12568, maybe you have some ideas about optimization?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Perhaps we should revert IGNITE-12568, but there are some metrics
>>>>> already
>>>>> created, which can't be rewritten using old message factory
>>>>> implementation
>>>>> (IGNITE-12756). Guys, WDYT?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Alexey,
>>>> 
>>>> I see that IGNITE-12756 (metrics improvements) is already released in
>>>> Ignite 2.8.1 while IGNITE-12568 (message factory) is only present in Ignite
>>>> 2.9. Let's revert both IGNITE-12568 and whichever new metrics created for
>>>> 2.9 that depend on the new message factory to unblock the release and deal
>>>> with the optimizations in 2.10?
>>>> 
>>> 


Mime
View raw message