Motivation:
We used incorrect assumeTrue(...) checks.
Modifications:
Fix check.
Result:
Be able to run tests also if java.nio.DirectByteBuffer.<init>(long, int) could not be accessed.
Motivation:
We not need to do an extra conditional check in retain(...) as we can just check for overflow after we did the increment.
Modifications:
- Remove extra conditional check
- Add test code.
Result:
One conditional check less.
Motivation:
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBuf as independent conditional statements to check the bounds of the retain IllegalReferenceCountException condition. One of the exceptions also uses the incorrect increment. The same fix was done for AbstractReferenceCounted as 01523e7835.
Modifications:
- Combined independent conditional checks into 1 where possible
- Correct IllegalReferenceCountException with incorrect increment
- Remove the subtract to check for overflow and re-use the addition and check for overflow to remove 1 arithmetic operation (see http://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-15.html#jls-15.18.2)
Result:
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBuf has less independent branch statements and more correct IllegalReferenceCountException. Compilation size of AbstractReferenceCountedByteBuf.retain() is reduced.
Motivation:
Some usages of findNextPositivePowerOfTwo assume that bounds checking is taken care of by this method. However bounds checking is not taken care of by findNextPositivePowerOfTwo and instead assert statements are used to imply the caller has checked the bounds. This can lead to unexpected non power of 2 return values if the caller is not careful and thus invalidate any logic which depends upon a power of 2.
Modifications:
- Add a safeFindNextPositivePowerOfTwo method which will do runtime bounds checks and always return a power of 2
Result:
Fixes https://github.com/netty/netty/issues/5601
Motivation:
When Unpooled.wrappedBuffer(...) is called with an array of ByteBuf with length >= 2 and the first ByteBuf is not readable it will result in double releasing of these empty buffers when release() is called on the returned buffer.
Modifications:
- Ensure we only wrap readable buffers.
- Add unit test
Result:
No double release of buffers.
Motivation:
retainSlice() currently does not unwrap the ByteBuf when creating the ByteBuf wrapper. This effectivley forms a linked list of ByteBuf when it is only necessary to maintain a reference to the unwrapped ByteBuf.
Modifications:
- retainSlice() and retainDuplicate() variants should only maintain a reference to the unwrapped ByteBuf
- create new unit tests which generally verify the retainSlice() behavior
- Remove unecessary generic arguments from AbstractPooledDerivedByteBuf
- Remove unecessary int length member variable from the unpooled sliced ByteBuf implementation
- Rename the unpooled sliced/derived ByteBuf to include Unpooled in their name to be more consistent with the Pooled variants
Result:
Fixes https://github.com/netty/netty/issues/5582
Motivation:
At the moment the Recyler is very sensitive to allocation bursts which means that if there is a need for X objects for only one time these will most likely end up in the Recycler and sit there forever as the normal workload only need a subset of this number.
Modifications:
Add a ratio which sets how many objects should be pooled for each new allocation. This allows to slowly increase the number of objects in the Recycler while not be to sensitive for bursts.
Result:
Less unused objects in the Recycler if allocation rate sometimes bursts.
Motivation:
SwappedByteBuf.retainedSlice(...) did not return a retained buffer.
Modifications:
Correctly delegate to retainedSlice(..) calls.
Result:
Correctly return retained slice.
Motivation:
Because of a bug we missed to include the first PoolSubpage when collection metrics.
Modifications:
- Correctly include all subpages
- Add unit test
Result:
Correctly include all subpages
Motivation:
In order to prevent a regression, add test case for a bug that caused a CompositeByteBuf to not release its components.
Modifications:
Add a test case that asserts a CompositeByteBuf's component buffers have indeed been released.
Result:
AbstractCompositeByteBuf gains a test case that will prevent future regressions.
Allow users of Netty to plug in their own leak detector for the purpose
of instrumentation.
Motivation:
We are rolling out a large Netty deployment and want to be able to
track the amount of leaks we're seeing in production via custom
instrumentation. In order to achieve this today, I had to plug in a
custom `ByteBufAllocator` into the bootstrap and have it initialize a
custom `ResourceLeakDetector`. Due to these classes mostly being marked
`final` or having private or static methods, a lot of the code had to
be copy-pasted and it's quite ugly.
Modifications:
* I've added a static loader method for the `ResourceLeakDetector` in
`AbstractByteBuf` that tries to instantiate the class passed in via the
`-Dio.netty.customResourceLeakDetector`, otherwise falling back to the
default one.
* I've modified `ResourceLeakDetector` to be non-final and to have the
reporting broken out in to methods that can be overridden.
Result:
You can instrument leaks in your application by just adding something
like the following:
```java
public class InstrumentedResourceLeakDetector<T> extends
ResourceLeakDetector<T> {
@Monitor("InstanceLeakCounter")
private final AtomicInteger instancesLeakCounter;
@Monitor("LeakCounter")
private final AtomicInteger leakCounter;
public InstrumentedResourceLeakDetector(Class<T> resource) {
super(resource);
this.instancesLeakCounter = new AtomicInteger();
this.leakCounter = new AtomicInteger();
}
@Override
protected void reportTracedLeak(String records) {
super.reportTracedLeak(records);
leakCounter.incrementAndGet();
}
@Override
protected void reportUntracedLeak() {
super.reportUntracedLeak();
leakCounter.incrementAndGet();
}
@Override
protected void reportInstancesLeak() {
super.reportInstancesLeak();
instancesLeakCounter.incrementAndGet();
}
}
```
Motivation:
See #82.
Modifications:
- Added `isText` to validate if the given ByteBuf is compliant with the specified charset.
- Optimized for UTF-8 and ASCII. For other cases, `CharsetDecoder.decoder` is used.
Result:
Users can validate ByteBuf with given charset.
Motivation:
We need to first store a reference to the wrapped buffer before recycle the AbstractPooledDerivedByteBuf instance. This is needed as otherwise it is possible that the same AbstractPooledDerivedByteBuf is again obtained and init(...) is called before we actually have a chance to call release(). This leads to call release() on the wrong buffer.
Modifications:
Store a reference to the wrapped buffer before call recycle and call release on the previous stored reference.
Result:
Always release the correct wrapped buffer when deallocate the AbstractPooledDerivedByteBuf.
Motivation:
If the user uses unsafe direct buffers with no cleaner we can use Unsafe.reallocateMemory(...) as optimization when we need to expand the buffer.
Modifications:
Use Unsafe.relocateMemory(...) in UnpooledUnsafeNoCleanerDirectByteBuf.
Result:
Less expensive expanding of buffers.
Motivation:
Using the Cleaner to release the native memory has a few drawbacks:
- Cleaner.clean() uses static synchronized internally which means it can be a performance bottleneck
- It put more load on the GC
Modifications:
Add new buffer implementations that can be enabled with a system flag as optimizations. In this case no Cleaner is used at all and the user must ensure everything is always released.
Result:
Less performance impact by direct buffers when need to be allocated and released.
Motivation:
Unsafe offers a method to set memory to a specific value. This can be used to implement an optimized version of setZero(...) and writeZero(...)
Modifications:
Add implementation for all Unsafe*ByteBuf implementations.
Result:
Faster setZero(...) and writeZero(...)
Motivation:
At the moment the user is responsible to increase the writer index of the composite buffer when a new component is added. We should add some methods that handle this for the user as this is the most popular usage of the composite buffer.
Modifications:
Add new methods that autoamtically increase the writerIndex when buffers are added.
Result:
Easier usage of CompositeByteBuf.
Motivation:
We missed to override a few methods and so some actions on the ByteBuf failed.
Modifications:
- Override all methods
- Add unit tests to ensure all is fixed.
Result:
All *LeakAware*ByteBuf have correct implementations
Motivation:
Recycler.recycle(...) should not be used anymore and be replaced by Handle.recycle().
Modifications:
Mark it as deprecated and update usage.
Result:
Correctly document deprecated api.
Motivation:
Some tests in PooledByteBufAllocatorTest are blocking on a CountDownLatch. We should use a timeout on these tests so these will not block forever on a failure.
Modifications:
Add timeout param to @Test annotation
Result:
Have sane timeouts on tests.
Motivation:
DefaultByteBufHolder.equals(...) and hashCode() should be implemented so it works correctly with instances that share the same content.
Modifications:
Add implementations and a unit-test.
Result:
Have correctly working equals(...) and hashCode() method
Related: #4333#4421#5128
Motivation:
slice(), duplicate() and readSlice() currently create a non-recyclable
derived buffer instance. Under heavy load, an application that creates a
lot of derived buffers can put the garbage collector under pressure.
Modifications:
- Add the following methods which creates a non-recyclable derived buffer
- retainedSlice()
- retainedDuplicate()
- readRetainedSlice()
- Add the new recyclable derived buffer implementations, which has its
own reference count value
- Add ByteBufHolder.retainedDuplicate()
- Add ByteBufHolder.replace(ByteBuf) so that..
- a user can replace the content of the holder in a consistent way
- copy/duplicate/retainedDuplicate() can delegate the holder
construction to replace(ByteBuf)
- Use retainedDuplicate() and retainedSlice() wherever possible
- Miscellaneous:
- Rename DuplicateByteBufTest to DuplicatedByteBufTest (missing 'D')
- Make ReplayingDecoderByteBuf.reject() return an exception instead of
throwing it so that its callers don't need to add dummy return
statement
Result:
Derived buffers are now recycled when created via retainedSlice() and
retainedDuplicate() and derived from a pooled buffer
Motivation:
PooledByteBufAllocatorTest.testNumThreadCachesWithNoDirrectArenas() had a race as it just used LockSupport.parkNanos(). We should better use a CountdownLatch and so be sure we really have init everything.
Modifications:
Replace LockSupport.parkNanos(...) with CountdownLatch usage
Result:
No more race in test.
Motivation:
We called deallocationsHuge.decrement() but it needs to be increment()
Modifications:
Replace decrement() with increment()
Result:
Correct metrics.
Motivation:
Often users either need to read or write CharSequences to a ByteBuf. We should add methods for this to ByteBuf as we can do some optimizations for this depending on the implementation.
Modifications:
Add setCharSequence, writeCharSequence, getCharSequence and readCharSequence
Result:
Easier reading / writing of CharSequence with ByteBuf.
Motivation:
Reduce nag warnings when compiling, make it easier for IDEs to display what's deprecated.
Modifications:
Added @Deprecated in a few places
Result:
No more warnings.
Motivation:
We lately added ByteBuf.isReadOnly() which allows to detect if a buffer is read-only or not. We should add ByteBuf.asReadOnly() to allow easily access a read-only version of a buffer.
Modifications:
- Add ByteBuf.asReadOnly()
- Deprecate Unpooled.unmodifiableBuffer(Bytebuf)
Result:
More consistent api.
Motivation:
When FixedCompositeByteBuf was constructed with new ByteBuf[0] and IndexOutOfboundsException was thrown.
Modifications:
Fix constructor
Result:
No more exception
Motivation:
We should not cache the SwappedByteBuf in AbstractByteBuf to reduce the memory footprint.
Modifications:
Not cache the SwappedByteBuf.
Result:
Less memory footprint.
Motivation:
Some ByteBuf implementations do not override all necessary methods,
which can lead to potentially sub-optimal behavior.
Also, SlicedByteBuf does not perform the range check correctly due to
missing overrides.
Modifications:
- Add missing overrides
- Use unwrap() instead of direct member access in derived buffers for
consistency
- Merge unwrap0() into unwrap() using covariant return type
- Deprecate AbstractDerivedByteBuf and its subtypes, because they were
not meant to be public
Result:
Correctness
