Motivation:
CompositeByteBuf.decompose(...) did not correctly slice the content and so produced an incorrect representation of the data.
Modifications:
- Rewrote implementation to fix bug and also improved it to reduce GC
- Add unit tests.
Result:
Fixes https://github.com/netty/netty/issues/8400.
Motivation:
While looking at the nice optimization done in
https://github.com/netty/netty/pull/8347 I couldn't help noticing the
logic could be simplified further. Apologies if this is just my OCD and
inappropriate!
Modifications:
Reduce amount of code used for ByteBufInputStream.readLine()
Result:
Slightly smaller and simpler code
Motivation:
Avoid creating any StringBuilder instance if
ByteBufInputStream::readLine isn't used
Modifications:
The StringBuilder instance is lazy allocated on demand and
are added new test case branches to address the increased
complexity of ByteBufInputStream::readLine
Result:
Reduced GC activity if ByteBufInputStream::readLine isn't used
Motivation:
We should just directly init the refCnt to 1 and not use the AtomicIntegerFieldUpdater.
Modifications:
Just assing directly to 1.
Result:
Cleaner code and possible a bit faster as the JVM / JIT may be able to optimize the first store easily.
Motiviation:
At the moment whenever ensureAccessible() is called in our ByteBuf implementations (which is basically on each operation) we will do a volatile read. That per-se is not such a bad thing but the problem here is that it will also reduce the the optimizations that the compiler / jit can do. For example as these are volatile it can not eliminate multiple loads of it when inline the methods of ByteBuf which happens quite frequently because most of them a quite small and very hot. That is especially true for all the methods that act on primitives.
It gets even worse as people often call a lot of these after each other in the same method or even use method chaining here.
The idea of the change is basically just ue a non-volatile read for the ensureAccessible() check as its a best-effort implementation to detect acting on already released buffers anyway as even with a volatile read it could happen that the user will release it in another thread before we actual access the buffer after the reference check.
Modifications:
- Try to do a non-volatile read using sun.misc.Unsafe if we can use it.
- Add a benchmark
Result:
Big performance win when multiple ByteBuf methods are called from a method.
With the change:
UnsafeByteBufBenchmark.setGetLongUnsafeByteBuf thrpt 20 281395842,128 ± 5050792,296 ops/s
Before the change:
UnsafeByteBufBenchmark.setGetLongUnsafeByteBuf thrpt 20 217419832,801 ± 5080579,030 ops/s
Motivation:
The JVM isn't always able to hoist out/reduce bounds checking (due to ref counting operations etc etc) hence making it configurable could improve performances for most CPU intensive use cases.
Modifications:
Each AbstractByteBuf bounds check has been tested against a new static final configuration property similar to checkAccessible ie io.netty.buffer.bytebuf.checkBounds.
Result:
Any user could disable ByteBuf bounds checking in order to get extra performances.
* Allow to use native transports when sun.misc.Unsafe is not present on the system
Motivation:
We should be able to use the native transports (epoll / kqueue) even when sun.misc.Unsafe is not present on the system. This is especially important as Java11 will be released soon and does not allow access to it by default.
Modifications:
- Correctly disable usage of sun.misc.Unsafe when -PnoUnsafe is used while running the build
- Correctly increment metric when UnpooledDirectByteBuf is allocated. This was uncovered once -PnoUnsafe usage was fixed.
- Implement fallbacks in all our native transport code for when sun.misc.Unsafe is not present.
Result:
Fixes https://github.com/netty/netty/issues/8229.
In nioBuffer(int,int) in CompositeByteBuf , we create a sub-array of nioBuffers for the components that are in range, then concatenate all the components in range into a single bigger buffer.
However, if the call to nioBuffers() returned only one sub-buffer, then we are copying it to a newly-allocated buffer "merged" for no reason.
Motivation:
Profiler for Spark shows a lot of time spent in put() method inside nioBuffer(), while usually no copy of data is required.
Modification:
This change skips this last step and just returns a duplicate of the single buffer returned by the call to nioBuffers(), which will in most implementation not copy the data
Result:
No copy when the source is only 1 buffer
Motivation:
We need to add special handling for WrappedCompositeByteBuf as these also extend AbstractByteBuf, otherwise we will not correctly adjust / read the writerIndex during processing.
Modifications:
- Add instanceof checks for WrappedCompositeByteBuf as well.
- Add testcases
Result:
Fixes https://github.com/netty/netty/issues/8152.
Motivation:
5b1fe611a6 introduced the usage of a finalizer as last resort for PoolThreadCache. As we may call free() from the FastThreadLocal.onRemoval(...) and finalize() we need to guard against multiple calls as otherwise we will corrupt internal state (that is used for metrics).
Modifications:
Use AtomicBoolean to guard against multiple calls of PoolThreadCache.free().
Result:
No more corruption of internal state caused by calling PoolThreadCache.free() multuple times.
Motivation:
Recent PR https://github.com/netty/netty/pull/8040 introduced
Unpooled.wrappedUnmodifiableBuffer(ByteBuf...) which has the same
behaviour but wraps the provided array directly. This is preferred for
most uses (including varargs-based use) and if there are any unusual
cases of an explicit array which is re-used before the ByteBuf is
finished with, it can just be copied first.
Modifications:
Added @Deprecated annotation and javadoc to
Unpooled.unmodifiableBuffer(ByteBuf...).
Result:
Unpooled.unmodifiableBuffer(ByteBuf...) will be deprecated.
Motivation:
ObjectCleaner does start a Thread to handle the cleaning of resources which leaks into the users application. We should not use it in netty itself to make things more predictable.
Modifications:
- Remove usage of ObjectCleaner and use finalize as a replacement when possible.
- Clarify javadocs for FastThreadLocal.onRemoval(...) to ensure its clear that remove() is not guaranteed to be called when the Thread completees and so this method is not enough to guarantee cleanup for this case.
Result:
Fixes https://github.com/netty/netty/issues/8017.
Motivation:
Unpooled.unmodifiableBuffer() is currently used to efficiently write
arrays of ByteBufs via FixedCompositeByteBuf, but involves an allocation
and content-copy of the provided ByteBuf array which in many (most?)
cases shouldn't be necessary.
Modifications:
Modify the internal FixedCompositeByteBuf class to support wrapping the
provided ByteBuf array directly. Control this behaviour with a
constructor flag and expose the "unsafe" version via a new
Unpooled.wrappedUnmodifiableBuffer(ByteBuf...) method.
Result:
Less garbage on IO paths. I would guess pretty much all existing usage
of unmodifiableBuffer() could use the copy-free version but assume it's
not safe to change its default behaviour.
Motivation:
Eliminate avoidable backing array reallocations when constructing
composite ByteBufs from existing buffer arrays/Iterables. This also
applies to the Unpooled.wrappedBuffer(...) methods.
Modifications:
Ensure the initial components ComponentList is sized at least as large
as the provided buffer array/Iterable in the CompositeByteBuffer
constructors.
In single-arg Unpooled.wrappedBuffer(...) methods, set maxNumComponents
to the count of provided buffers, rather than a fixed default of 16. It
seems likely that most usage of these involves wrapping a list without
subsequent modification, particularly since they return a ByteBuf rather
than CompositeByteBuf. If a different/larger max is required there are
already the wrappedBuffer(int, ...) variants.
In fact the current behaviour could be considered inconsistent - if you
call Unpooled.wrappedBuffer(int, ByteBuf) with a single buffer, you
might expect to subsequently be able to add buffers to it (since you
specified a max related to consolidation), but it will in fact return
just a slice of the provided ByteBuf.
Result:
Fewer and smaller allocations in some cases when using CompositeByteBufs
or Unpooled.wrappedBuffer(...).
Motivation:
Currently there is not a clear way to provide a byte array to a netty
ByteBuf and be informed when it is released. This is a would be a
valuable addition for projects that integrate with netty but also pool
their own byte arrays.
Modification:
Modified the UnpooledHeapByteBuf class so that the freeArray method is
protected visibility instead of default. This will allow a user to
subclass the UnpooledHeapByteBuf, provide a byte array, and override
freeArray to return the byte array to a pool when it is called.
Additionally this makes this implementation equivalent to
UnpooledDirectByteBuf (freeDirect is protected).
Additionally allocateArray is also made protect to provide another override
option for subclasses.
Result:
Users can override UnpooledHeapByteBuf#freeArray and
UnpooledHeapByteBuf#allocateArray.
Motivation:
When I read the source code, I found that the comment of PoolChunk is out of date, it may confuses readers with the description about memoryMap.
Modifications:
update the last passage of the comment of the PoolChunk class.
Result:
No change to any source code , just update comment.
Motivation:
When a buffer is over-released, the current error message of `IllegalReferenceCountException` is `refCnt: XXX, increment: XXX`, which is confusing. The correct message should be `refCnt: XXX, decrement: XXX`.
Modifications:
Pass `-decrement` to create `IllegalReferenceCountException`.
Result:
The error message will be `refCnt: XXX, decrement: XXX` when a buffer is over-released.
Motivation:
It should be possible to write a ReadOnlyByteBufferBuf to a channel without errors. However, ReadOnlyByteBufferBuf does not override isWritable and ensureWritable, which can cause some handlers to mistakenly assume they can write to the ReadOnlyByteBufferBuf, resulting in ReadOnlyBufferException.
Modification:
Added isWritable and ensureWritable method overrides on ReadOnlyByteBufferBuf to indicate that it is never writable. Added tests for these methods.
Result:
Can successfully write ReadOnlyByteBufferBuf to a channel with an SslHandler (or any other handler which may attempt to write to the ByteBuf it receives).
Motivation:
The `AbstractByteBuf#equals` method doesn't take into account the
class of buffer instance. So the two buffers with different classes
must have the same `hashCode` values if `equals` method returns `true`.
But `EmptyByteBuf#hashCode` is not consistent with `#hashCode`
of the empty `AbstractByteBuf`, that is violates the contract and
can lead to errors.
Modifications:
Return `1` in `EmptyByteBuf#hashCode`.
Result:
Consistent behavior of `EmptyByteBuf#hashCode` and `AbstractByteBuf#hashCode`.
Motivation:
The `ByteBuf#slice` and `ByteBuf#duplicate` methods should check
an accessibility to prevent creation slice or duplicate
of released buffer. At now this works not in the all scenarios.
Modifications:
Add missed checks.
Result:
More correct and consistent behavior of `ByteBuf` methods.
Motivation:
The `#ensureAccessible` method in `UnpooledHeapByteBuf#capacity` used
to prevent NPE if buffer is released and `array` is `null`. In all
other implementations of `ByteBuf` the accessible is not checked by
`capacity` method. We can assign an empty array to `array`
in the `deallocate` and don't worry about NPE in the `#capacity`.
This will help reduce the number of repeated calls of the
`#ensureAccessible` in many operations with `UnpooledHeapByteBuf`.
Modifications:
1. Remove `#ensureAccessible` call from `UnpooledHeapByteBuf#capacity`.
Use the `EmptyArrays#EMPTY_BYTES` instead of `null` in `#deallocate`.
2. Fix access checks in `AbstractUnsafeSwappedByteBuf` and
`AbstractByteBuf#slice` that relied on `#ensureAccessible`
in `UnpooledHeapByteBuf#capacity`. This was found by unit tests.
Result:
Less double calls of `#ensureAccessible` for `UnpooledHeapByteBuf`.
Motivation:
Currently copying a direct ByteBuf copies it fully into the heap before writing it to an output stream.
The can result in huge memory usage on the heap.
Modification:
copy the bytebuf contents via an 8k buffer into the output stream
Result:
Fixes#7804
Motivation:
We should allow to access the memoryAddress / array of the FixedCompositeByteBuf when it only wraps a single ByteBuf. We do the same for CompositeByteBuf.
Modifications:
- Check how many buffers FixedCompositeByteBuf wraps and depending on it delegate the access to the memoryAddress / array
- Add unit tests.
Result:
Fixes [#7752].
Motivation:
If someone invoke writeByte(), markWriterIndex(), readByte() in order first, and then invoke resetWriterIndex() should be throw a IndexOutOfBoundsException to obey the rule that the buffer declared "0 <= readerIndex <= writerIndex <= capacity".
Modification:
Changed the code writerIndex = markedWriterIndex; into writerIndex(markedWriterIndex); to make the check affect
Result:
Throw IndexOutOfBoundsException if any invalid happened in resetWriterIndex.
Motivation:
Read-only heap ByteBuffer doesn't expose array: the existent method to perform copies to direct ByteBuf involves the creation of a (maybe pooled) additional heap ByteBuf instance and copy
Modifications:
To avoid stressing the allocator with additional (and stealth) heap ByteBuf allocations is provided a method to perform copies using the (pooled) internal NIO buffer
Result:
Copies from read-only heap ByteBuffer to direct ByteBuf won't create any intermediate ByteBuf
Motivation:
To avoid eager allocation of the destination and to perform length prefixed encoding of UTF-8 string with forward only access pattern
Modifications:
The original writeUtf8 is modified by allowing customization of the reserved bytes on the destination buffer and is introduced an exact UTF-8 length estimator.
Result:
Is now possible to perform length first encoding with UTF-8 well-formed char sequences following a forward only write access pattern on the destination buffer.
Motivation:
ByteBufUtil by default will cache DirectByteBuffer objects, and the
associated direct memory (up to 64k). In combination with the Recycler which may
cache up to 32k elements per thread may lead to a large amount of direct
memory being retained per EventLoop thread. As traffic spikes come this
may be perceived as a memory leak because the memory in the Recycler
will never be reclaimed.
Modifications:
- By default we shouldn't cache DirectByteBuffer objects.
Result:
Less direct memory consumption due to caching DirectByteBuffer objects.
