Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #28649

Re: NIO not so hot

Show all headers | View raw

A remark upfront: Google Groups really screws up line breaks.  Can you 
please use a different text type or even a proper news reader?

On 02.06.2014 16:37, Rupert Smith wrote:
> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 11:15:01 AM UTC+1, Robert Klemme wrote:
>> On 31.05.2014 11:29, Rupert Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Try using a direct byte buffer which has been pre-allocated. Direct
>>> buffers are allocated outside the Java heap (using malloc()?), so the
>>> allocation cost is high. They only really provide a performance boost
>>> when re-used.
>>
>> That of course depends on the usage scenario, e.g. the frequency of
>> allocation etc.  If you serve long lasting connections the cost of
>> allocating and freeing a DirectByteBuffer is negligible and other
>> reasons may gain more weight in the decision to use a direct or heap
>> buffer (e.g. whether access to the byte[] can make things faster as I
>> assume is the case in my decoding tests posted upthread).
>
> The allocation cost is unfortunately not negligable.

This is not what I said.

> Allocation cost within the heap is very low, because it is easy to
> do. Outside the heap with a malloc() type algorithm can be
> considerably slower, because free blocks may need to be searched
> for.

All true, but I did not question that at all.

>>> Also, if you dig into the internals you will find that a heap buffer
>>> reading a file or socket will copy bytes from a direct buffer anyway,
>>> and that Java does its own internal pooling/re-allocation of direct
>>> buffers.
>>
>> Can you point me to more information about this?  Or are you referring
>> to OpenJDK's source code?
>
> Yes, I looked in the OpenJDK source code. You don't have to dig too
> far under socket.read() or socket.write() to find it.

Thank you!  I'll have a look once I find the time.

>>> Often benchmarks will say heap buffers are faster, because they
>>> allocate buffer then read some data then allow buffer to be garbage
>>> collected.
>>
>> I think heap byte buffers were faster in my tests (see upthread) not
>> because of allocation and GC (this was not included in the time
>> measurement) but rather because data would cross the boundary between
>> non Java heap memory (where they arrive from the OS) to Java heap more
>> infrequently because of the larger batches.  If you have to fetch
>> individual bytes from a ByteBuffer off Java heap you have to make the
>> transition much more frequent.
>
> As I say, this does seem to have been optimized, although I admit I
> am a little unsure as to exactly how. It was certainly the case in
> 1.4 and maybe 1.5 that heap buffer array [] access was faster, and
> get()/set() was slow. I have seen benchmarks and run my own
> micro-benachmarks which suggest that get()/set() is now every bit as
> fast as the array access.

On a heap buffer, yes.

In case I did not mention it: I tested with OpenJDK 7.55 64 bit.

>>> I may be wrong but... are the byte get()/set() calls not trapped by
>>> some compiler intrinsics and optimized away?
>>
>> DirectByteBuffer.get() contains a native call to fetch the byte - and I
>> don't think the JIT will optimize away native calls.  The JRE just does
>> not have any insights into what JNI calls do.
>
> Exactly what I though, yet it does seem to be optimized.

I don't think so.  I think my test showed the exact opposite.  If you 
believe differently please point out where exactly I am missing 
something.  And / or present a test which proves your point.

Cheers

	robert

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

NIO not so hot Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-05-17 04:28 -0700
  Re: NIO not so hot Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-05-18 13:38 +0200
    Re: NIO not so hot Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-05-18 13:38 +0200
      Re: NIO not so hot Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-05-18 14:12 +0200
        Re: NIO not so hot Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-05-18 19:09 +0200
          Re: NIO not so hot Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-05-26 00:51 -0700
            Re: NIO not so hot Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-05-26 20:14 +0200
    Re: NIO not so hot Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-05-26 01:15 -0700
    Re: NIO not so hot Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2014-05-26 01:24 -0700
      Re: NIO not so hot Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-05-26 23:50 +0200
  Re: NIO not so hot Rupert Smith <rupertlssmith@googlemail.com> - 2014-05-31 02:29 -0700
    Re: NIO not so hot Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-06-01 12:15 +0200
      Re: NIO not so hot Rupert Smith <rupertlssmith@googlemail.com> - 2014-06-02 07:37 -0700
        Re: NIO not so hot Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2014-06-03 23:07 +0200
          Re: NIO not so hot Rupert Smith <rupertlssmith@googlemail.com> - 2014-06-06 01:32 -0700
      Re: NIO not so hot Rupert Smith <rupertlssmith@googlemail.com> - 2014-06-02 07:46 -0700

csiph-web