[hibernate-dev] [ORM] Synchronization on AbstractLoadPlanBasedLoader

[Vlad Mihalcea]

Hi,

Sorry for the confusion, I mistakenly replied on a different thread.

Vlad

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 3:48 AM, Steve Ebersole <steve at hibernate.org> wrote:

> I'm confused.  Sanne was talking about a completely different piece of
> code from optimizers.  Maybe you are mixing this and the other current
> hibernate-dev discussion?
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:10 AM Vlad Mihalcea <mihalcea.vlad at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We really need to test it thoroughly because the current pooled optimizer
>> are reasonably fast especially when used with a database sequence.
>> The table generators are slow because of the row-level locking, so I won't
>> include those in this discussion.
>>
>> What strikes me is the synchronized block which might cause contention we
>> didn't have before.
>> I'd also vote for a new optimizer instead of modifying the pooled or the
>> pooled-lo ones.
>> The current optimizer are quite easy to grasp, and, if we are to add a
>> high-performance one, I think a new implementation is better suited for
>> this task.
>>
>> Vlad
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 6:25 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne at hibernate.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>> > while reviewing an improvement by Stale about reducing
>> > synchronization, I'm having the impression that the synchronization
>> > could be completely removed.
>> >
>> > But there's a comment warning me against that, so for sake of safety
>> > I'm merging the improvement without risking going too far:
>> >
>> >  // synchronized to avoid multi-thread access issues; defined as
>> > method synch to avoid
>> >  // potential deadlock issues due to nature of code.
>> >
>> > I tried to figure what "potential deadlock" it's referring to, but I'm
>> > having the impression the comment might be outdated. So I've reduced
>> > the contention to the only include the code block about which I'm not
>> > confident.
>> > By looking into git history, it seems the comment isn't related to any
>> > specific fix but was included already when this class was first
>> > created.
>> >
>> > Would someone be able to point out what is the issue this is protecting
>> > against?
>> >
>> > That should allow us to provide an even better patch, although I'll
>> > apply the safe one for now so to at least have the benefits already
>> > when wrapping of result-sets is disabled.
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Sanne
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > hibernate-dev mailing list
>> > hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> hibernate-dev mailing list
>> hibernate-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
>>
>