Radim, I also knew the 1.7 ForkJoinPool isn't really optimized for blocking
tasks, but the ManagedBlocker interface mentioned in [3] seems to be
intended just for that.
Re: commonPool(), we can (and should) still create our own ForkJoinPool
instead of using the global one.
Cheers
Dan
On Thu, Nov 13, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
F/J tasks should not acquire any locks (or, generally, block) during
their execution. At least according to JavaDocs. Are we ready for that?
Btw., I really don't like the fact that the commonPool() cannot be
properly shutdown. This leads to threadlocal variables leaking when the
component using F/J pool is undeployed (the classloader cannot be GCed
and you end up with OOME in PermGen space).
Radim
On 11/13/2014 08:28 AM, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
> @Pedro, did you consider using a ForkJoinPool instead?
>
> Traditional JDK pools are known to be very hard to configure and get it
“right”. Fork join pools are being used as default thread pools in other
libraries, vastly reducing configuration.
>
> Jessitron has published some interesting blog posts on the advantages of
traditional ExecutorService vs Fork/Join pools and viceversa. See [1] and
[3]. She also did a talk on it, see [4].
>
> Cheers,
>
> p.s. I’ve not studied your use case in depth to decide whether F/J would
suite better, but it’s certainly worth a look now that we’re on Java 7.
>
> [1]
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPo...
> [2]
http://blog.jessitron.com/2014/01/choosing-executorservice.html
> [3]
http://blog.jessitron.com/2014/02/scala-global-executioncontext-makes.html
> [4]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhguOt863nw
>
> On 07 Nov 2014, at 09:31, Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Btw., have you ever considered checks if a thread returns to pool
>> reasonably often? Some of the other datagrids use this, though there's
>> not much how to react upon that beyond printing out stack traces (but
>> you can at least report to management that some node seems to be
broken).
>>
>> Radim
>>
>> On 11/07/2014 08:35 AM, Bela Ban wrote:
>>> That's exactly what I suggested. No config gives you a shared global
>>> thread pool for all caches.
>>>
>>> Those caches which need a separate pool can do that via configuration
>>> (and of course also programmatically)
>>>
>>> On 06/11/14 20:31, Tristan Tarrant wrote:
>>>> My opinion is that we should aim for less configuration, i.e.
>>>> threadpools should mostly have sensible defaults and be shared by
>>>> default unless there are extremely good reasons for not doing so.
>>>>
>>>> Tristan
>>>>
>>>> On 06/11/14 19:40, Radim Vansa wrote:
>>>>> I second the opinion that any threadpools should be shared by
default.
>>>>> There are users who have hundreds or thousands of caches and having
>>>>> separate threadpool for each of them could easily drain resources.
And
>>>>> sharing resources is the purpose of threadpools, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Radim
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/06/2014 04:37 PM, Bela Ban wrote:
>>>>>> #1 I would by default have 1 thread pool shared by all caches
>>>>>> #2 This global thread pool should be configurable, perhaps in
the
>>>>>> <global> section ?
>>>>>> #3 Each cache by default uses the gobal thread pool
>>>>>> #4 A cache can define its own thread pool, then it would use
this
one
>>>>>> and not the global thread pool
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think this gives you a mixture between ease of use and
flexibility in
>>>>>> configuring pool per cache if needed
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/11/14 16:23, Pedro Ruivo wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/06/2014 03:01 PM, Bela Ban wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06/11/14 15:36, Pedro Ruivo wrote:
>>>>>>>>> * added a single thread remote executor service.
This will
handle the
>>>>>>>>> FIFO deliver commands. Previously, they were handled
by JGroups
incoming
>>>>>>>>> threads and with a new executor service, each cache
can process
their
>>>>>>>>> own FIFO commands concurrently.
>>>>>>>> +1000. This allows multiple updates from the same sender
but to
>>>>>>>> different caches to be executed in parallel, and will
speed thing
up.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you intend to share a thread pool between the
invocations
handlers of
>>>>>>>> the various caches, or do they each have their own
thread pool ?
Or is
>>>>>>>> this configurable ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is question that cross my mind and I don't have any
idea what
would
>>>>>>> be the best. So, for now, I will leave the thread pool
shared
between
>>>>>>> the handlers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Never thought to make it configurable, but maybe that is the
best
>>>>>>> option. And maybe, it should be possible to have different
max-thread
>>>>>>> size per cache. For example:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * all caches using this remote executor will share the same
instance
>>>>>>> <remote-executor name="shared"
shared="true" max-threads=4.../>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * all caches using this remote executor will create their
own
thread
>>>>>>> pool with max-threads equals to 1
>>>>>>> <remote-executor name="low-throughput-cache"
shared="false"
>>>>>>> max-threads=1 .../>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * all caches using this remote executor will create their
own
thread
>>>>>>> pool with max-threads equals to 1000
>>>>>>> <remote executor name="high-throughput-cache"
shared="false"
>>>>>>> max-thread=1000 .../>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> is this what you have in mind? comments?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> Pedro
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>>>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
>> JBoss DataGrid QA
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> infinispan-dev mailing list
>> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
>
> --
> Galder Zamarreño
> galder(a)redhat.com
>
twitter.com/galderz
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> infinispan-dev mailing list
> infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
--
Radim Vansa <rvansa(a)redhat.com>
JBoss DataGrid QA
_______________________________________________
infinispan-dev mailing list
infinispan-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev