January 2017 - jboss-jira - Jboss List Archives

[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-2150) More efficient message adding and draining

by Bela Ban (JIRA)

Bela Ban created JGRP-2150: ------------------------------ Summary: More efficient message adding and draining Key: JGRP-2150 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-2150 Project: JGroups Issue Type: Enhancement Reporter: Bela Ban Assignee: Bela Ban In NAKACK2, UNICAST3 and in MaxOneThreadPerSenderPolicy, we have a pattern where aone or more producers add messages (to a table in NAKACK2 and UNICAST3, or to a MessageBatch in MaxOneThreadPerSenderPolicy) and then only *a single thread* can remove and deliver messages up the stack. This requires synchronization around (1) determining the thread will be remove messages, (2) adding messages to the table (or batch) and (3) removing messages from the table or batch. Unit tests DrainTest and MessageBatchDrainTest show how a simple AtomicInteger can be used to do this. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (JGRP-2143) TP: use only one thread per member to pass up regular messages

by Bela Ban (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-2143?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Bela Ban reopened JGRP-2143: ---------------------------- Use a bounded MessageBatch in OneThreadPerSenderPolicy: a special add() never increases the capacity and only messages that fit into the batch are accepted, returns true (all messages were added) or false (all or some messages were discarded). Discarding is ok as retransmission will resend them later. > TP: use only one thread per member to pass up regular messages > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: JGRP-2143 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JGRP-2143 > Project: JGroups > Issue Type: Enhancement > Reporter: Bela Ban > Assignee: Bela Ban > Fix For: 4.0 > > > This applies only to _regular_ messages; OOB and internal messages are processed by passing them to the thread pool directly when they they're received. > The processing of a message received from B is as follows: > * A regular message (or message batch) is assigned a thread from the thread pool and passed up to the reliability protocol, e.g. NAKACK2 or UNICAST3. > * There is is added to the table for B. > * The thread sees if another thread is already delivering messages from B to the application. If not, it grabs as many consecutive (ordered) messages from the table as it can and delivers them to the application. Otherwise, it returns and can be assigned other tasks. > The problem here is that more than one thread may be passing up messages from a given sender B; only at the NAKACK2 or UNICAST3 level will a single thread be selected to deliver the messages to the application. > This causes higher thread pool usage than required, with all of its drawbacks, e.g. more context switching, higher contention on adding messages to the table for B, and possibly exhaustion of the thread pool. > An example of where service is denied or delayed: > * We have a cluster of \{A,B,C,D\} > * A receives 10 messages from B, 4 from C and 1 from D > * The thread pool's max size is 20 > * The 10 messages from B are processed; all 10 threads add their messages to the table, but only 1 delivers them to the application and the other 9 return to the pool > * 4 messages from C are added to C's table, 1 thread delivers them and 3 return > * The 1 message from D is added to D's table and the same thread is used to deliver the message up the stack to the application > So while we receive 15 messages, effectively only 3 threads are needed to deliver them to the application: as these are regular messages, they need to be delivered in _sender order_. > The 9 threads which process messages from B are only adding them to B's table and then return immediately. This causes increased context switching, plus more contention on B's table (which is synchronized), and possibly exhaustion of the thread pool. For example, if the pool's max size was only 10, then processing the first 10 messages from B would exhaust the table, and the other messages from C and D would be processed in newly spawned threads. > SOLUTION > * (Only applicable to _regular_ messages) > * When a message (or batch) from sender P is received, we check if another thread is already passing up messages from B. If not, we pass the message up by grabbing a thread from the thread pool. This will add the message to P's table and deliver as many messages (from from the table) as possible to the application. > * If there's currently a thread delivering P's message, we simply add the message (or batch) to a queue for P and return. > * When the delivery thread returns, it checks the queue for P and delivers all queued messages, or returns if the queue is empty. > * (The queue is actually a MessageBatch, and new messages are simply appended to it. On delivery, the batch is cleared) > The effects of this for regular messages are > * Fewer threads: the thread pool only has a max of <cluster-members> threads for regular messages where <cluster-members> is the number of members in the cluster from whom we are concurrently receiving messages. E.g. for a cluster \{A,B,C,D\}, if we're receiving messages at the same time from all members, then the max size is 4. > ** Of course, OOB and internal messages, plus timer tasks will add to this number. > * Less contention on the table for a given member: instead of 10 threads all adding their messages to B's table (contention on the table lock) and then CASing a boolean, only 1 thread ever adds and removes messages to/from the table. This means uncontended (= fast) lock acquisition for regular messages (of course, if we use OOB messages, then we do have contention). > * Appending to a batch is much faster then adding to a table > * The downside is that we're storing messages actually twice: once in the batch for P and once in P's table. But these are arrays of pointers, so not a lot of memory required. > Example: the 10 threads for messages from B above, will create a batch of 9 messages in B's queue and grab 1 thread from the pool to deliver its message. When the thread is done, it will grab the message batch of 9 and also add it to the table and deliver it. > This is similar to the bulkhead pattern \[1\]. > \[1\] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30391809/what-is-bulkhead-pattern-used... -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-7841) ManagedScheduledExecutorService could not find EntityManager produced by CDI producer. No active context.

by Martin Kouba (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7841?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Martin Kouba commented on WFLY-7841: ------------------------------------ Well, it makes sense. However, we should be careful here. bq. Tasks that are submitted to a managed instance of ExecutorService may still be running after the lifecycle of the submitting component. (2.3.2.1 Tasks and Contexts and Dependency Injection) If you submit a task which is a client proxy of a {{@RequestScoped}} bean, then the real bean instance executed will be (most probably) a completely different object than the one a user might think he/she is passing. This might be really confusing. So I think it's ok to activate request context and use {{@RequestScoped}} beans during task execution but the task itself should not be {{@RequestScoped}}. > ManagedScheduledExecutorService could not find EntityManager produced by CDI producer. No active context. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: WFLY-7841 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7841 > Project: WildFly > Issue Type: Bug > Components: CDI / Weld > Affects Versions: 10.0.0.Final, 10.1.0.Final > Reporter: Tibor Digana > Assignee: Stuart Douglas > > The problem is that _EntityManager_ does not have managed delegate within a job executed by _ManagedScheduledExecutorService#scheduleAtFixedRate()_. > The _EntityManager_ is produced by CDI producer and entire web application is able to work with injected _EntityManager_ except for the jobs. > I tried to schedule executing the job in two ways and both finished with same issue (No managed context in _EntityManager_) : > * _@ApplicationScoped_ job instance was passed to executor from caller. > * The job was changed to _RequestScoped_ and _ContextProxy#createContextualProxy()_ created the Job bean instance and then I called _scheduleAtFixedRate(job, 5, 60, SECONDS)_ > It looks to me that _javax.enterprise.concurrent_ has a different _BeanManager_ and therefore has no notion about my CDI Producer of _EntityManager_. The producer is regular producer of _EntityManager_ in JavaEE. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-7841) ManagedScheduledExecutorService could not find EntityManager produced by CDI producer. No active context.

by Stuart Douglas (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7841?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Stuart Douglas commented on WFLY-7841: -------------------------------------- I think we should probably do it as a non standard extension. > ManagedScheduledExecutorService could not find EntityManager produced by CDI producer. No active context. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: WFLY-7841 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7841 > Project: WildFly > Issue Type: Bug > Components: CDI / Weld > Affects Versions: 10.0.0.Final, 10.1.0.Final > Reporter: Tibor Digana > Assignee: Stuart Douglas > > The problem is that _EntityManager_ does not have managed delegate within a job executed by _ManagedScheduledExecutorService#scheduleAtFixedRate()_. > The _EntityManager_ is produced by CDI producer and entire web application is able to work with injected _EntityManager_ except for the jobs. > I tried to schedule executing the job in two ways and both finished with same issue (No managed context in _EntityManager_) : > * _@ApplicationScoped_ job instance was passed to executor from caller. > * The job was changed to _RequestScoped_ and _ContextProxy#createContextualProxy()_ created the Job bean instance and then I called _scheduleAtFixedRate(job, 5, 60, SECONDS)_ > It looks to me that _javax.enterprise.concurrent_ has a different _BeanManager_ and therefore has no notion about my CDI Producer of _EntityManager_. The producer is regular producer of _EntityManager_ in JavaEE. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-7841) ManagedScheduledExecutorService could not find EntityManager produced by CDI producer. No active context.

by Tomas Remes (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7841?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Tomas Remes commented on WFLY-7841: ----------------------------------- Yes request scope is not active in this case and unfortunately it's not required by the Concurrency utilities spec AFAIK. Application scope should work. > ManagedScheduledExecutorService could not find EntityManager produced by CDI producer. No active context. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: WFLY-7841 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7841 > Project: WildFly > Issue Type: Bug > Components: CDI / Weld > Affects Versions: 10.0.0.Final, 10.1.0.Final > Reporter: Tibor Digana > Assignee: Stuart Douglas > > The problem is that _EntityManager_ does not have managed delegate within a job executed by _ManagedScheduledExecutorService#scheduleAtFixedRate()_. > The _EntityManager_ is produced by CDI producer and entire web application is able to work with injected _EntityManager_ except for the jobs. > I tried to schedule executing the job in two ways and both finished with same issue (No managed context in _EntityManager_) : > * _@ApplicationScoped_ job instance was passed to executor from caller. > * The job was changed to _RequestScoped_ and _ContextProxy#createContextualProxy()_ created the Job bean instance and then I called _scheduleAtFixedRate(job, 5, 60, SECONDS)_ > It looks to me that _javax.enterprise.concurrent_ has a different _BeanManager_ and therefore has no notion about my CDI Producer of _EntityManager_. The producer is regular producer of _EntityManager_ in JavaEE. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (WFCORE-2023) Log viewer does not show any log file for rpm installation

by Bartosz Baranowski (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-2023?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ] Bartosz Baranowski updated WFCORE-2023: --------------------------------------- Summary: Log viewer does not show any log file for rpm installation (was: (7.0.z) Log viewer does not show any log file for rpm installation) > Log viewer does not show any log file for rpm installation > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: WFCORE-2023 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-2023 > Project: WildFly Core > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Logging > Reporter: Bartosz Baranowski > Assignee: James Perkins > Fix For: 3.0.0.Alpha17 > > > I'm running a fresh RHEL7.3 server subscribed to the current jboss eap7 repository [1] using the rpm package. [2] > [1] subscription-manager repos --enable=jb-eap-7-for-rhel-RHEL_VERSION-server-rpms > [2] https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/red-hat-jboss-enterprise-appli... -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-7544) @Startup @Singleton fails to invoke EJB via Remote interface in PostConstruct

by RH Bugzilla Integration (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7544?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] RH Bugzilla Integration commented on WFLY-7544: ----------------------------------------------- Jiří Bílek <jbilek(a)redhat.com> changed the Status of [bug 1389428|https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1389428] from ON_QA to VERIFIED > @Startup @Singleton fails to invoke EJB via Remote interface in PostConstruct > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: WFLY-7544 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7544 > Project: WildFly > Issue Type: Bug > Components: EJB > Affects Versions: 10.1.0.Final > Reporter: Fedor Gavrilov > Assignee: Fedor Gavrilov > Labels: downstream_dependency > Fix For: 11.0.0.Alpha1 > > > While cross-vm calls to beans through remote interfaces while their @PostConstruct is not done yet should be disallowed, in-vm calls should be able to proceed normally. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-7846) jboss-web.xml overlay option not honored

by Brad Maxwell (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7846?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Brad Maxwell updated WFLY-7846: ------------------------------- Summary: jboss-web.xml overlay option not honored (was: jboss-web.xml overlay option not honroed) > jboss-web.xml overlay option not honored > ---------------------------------------- > > Key: WFLY-7846 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7846 > Project: WildFly > Issue Type: Bug > Components: Web (Undertow) > Affects Versions: 10.1.0.Final > Reporter: Brad Maxwell > Assignee: Stuart Douglas > > The overlay option in jboss-web_10_0.xsd not honored: > {code} > The overlay element specifies additional static files overlays for this > web application. The content of the element should be a folder in the > filesystem containing the static files that will overlay the webapp's > static files, similar to what happens with regular JAR overlays. > {code} > {code} > <jboss-web xmlns="http://www.jboss.com/xml/ns/javaee" > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" > xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.jboss.com/xml/ns/javaee http://www.jboss.org/j2ee/schema/jboss-web_10_0.xsd" > version="10.0"> > <overlay>/home/web/content</overlay> > </jboss-web> > {code} -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-7841) ManagedScheduledExecutorService could not find EntityManager produced by CDI producer. No active context.

by Stuart Douglas (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7841?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Stuart Douglas commented on WFLY-7841: -------------------------------------- It sounds like the issue is that no request scope is set up for ManagedExecutorService tasks. I am not sure if this is required by spec, but it would make sense. > ManagedScheduledExecutorService could not find EntityManager produced by CDI producer. No active context. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: WFLY-7841 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7841 > Project: WildFly > Issue Type: Bug > Components: CDI / Weld > Affects Versions: 10.0.0.Final, 10.1.0.Final > Reporter: Tibor Digana > Assignee: Stuart Douglas > > The problem is that _EntityManager_ does not have managed delegate within a job executed by _ManagedScheduledExecutorService#scheduleAtFixedRate()_. > The _EntityManager_ is produced by CDI producer and entire web application is able to work with injected _EntityManager_ except for the jobs. > I tried to schedule executing the job in two ways and both finished with same issue (No managed context in _EntityManager_) : > * _@ApplicationScoped_ job instance was passed to executor from caller. > * The job was changed to _RequestScoped_ and _ContextProxy#createContextualProxy()_ created the Job bean instance and then I called _scheduleAtFixedRate(job, 5, 60, SECONDS)_ > It looks to me that _javax.enterprise.concurrent_ has a different _BeanManager_ and therefore has no notion about my CDI Producer of _EntityManager_. The producer is regular producer of _EntityManager_ in JavaEE. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

[JBoss JIRA] (WFLY-7841) ManagedScheduledExecutorService could not find EntityManager produced by CDI producer. No active context.

by Tibor Digana (JIRA)

[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7841?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.... ] Tibor Digana updated WFLY-7841: ------------------------------- Git Pull Request: (was: https://github.com/Tibor17/issue-7841) > ManagedScheduledExecutorService could not find EntityManager produced by CDI producer. No active context. > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Key: WFLY-7841 > URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFLY-7841 > Project: WildFly > Issue Type: Bug > Components: CDI / Weld > Affects Versions: 10.0.0.Final, 10.1.0.Final > Reporter: Tibor Digana > Assignee: Stuart Douglas > > The problem is that _EntityManager_ does not have managed delegate within a job executed by _ManagedScheduledExecutorService#scheduleAtFixedRate()_. > The _EntityManager_ is produced by CDI producer and entire web application is able to work with injected _EntityManager_ except for the jobs. > I tried to schedule executing the job in two ways and both finished with same issue (No managed context in _EntityManager_) : > * _@ApplicationScoped_ job instance was passed to executor from caller. > * The job was changed to _RequestScoped_ and _ContextProxy#createContextualProxy()_ created the Job bean instance and then I called _scheduleAtFixedRate(job, 5, 60, SECONDS)_ > It looks to me that _javax.enterprise.concurrent_ has a different _BeanManager_ and therefore has no notion about my CDI Producer of _EntityManager_. The producer is regular producer of _EntityManager_ in JavaEE. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v7.2.3#72005)

8 years, 9 months

1
0
0 / 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

jboss-jira January 2017