Motivation:
At the moment we create new ThreadPoolCache whenever a Thread tries either allocate or release something on the PooledByteBufAllocator. When something is released we put it then in its ThreadPoolCache. The problem is we never check if a Thread is not alive anymore and so we may end up with memory that is never freed again if a user create many short living Threads that use the PooledByteBufAllocator.
Modifications:
Periodically check if the Thread is still alive that has a ThreadPoolCache assinged and if not free it.
Result:
Memory is freed up correctly even for short living Threads.
Motivation:
Remove the synchronization bottleneck in PoolArena and so speed up things
Modifications:
This implementation uses kind of the same technics as outlined in the jemalloc paper and jemalloc
blogpost https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-engineering/scalable-memory-allocation-using-jemalloc/480222803919.
At the moment we only cache for "known" Threads (that powers EventExecutors) and not for others to keep the overhead
minimal when need to free up unused buffers in the cache and free up cached buffers once the Thread completes. Here
we use multi-level caches for tiny, small and normal allocations. Huge allocations are not cached at all to keep the
memory usage at a sane level. All the different cache configurations can be adjusted via system properties or the constructor
directly where it makes sense.
Result:
Less conditions as most allocations can be served by the cache itself
Motivation:
I was studying the code and thought this was simpler and easier to
understand.
Modifications:
Replaced the for loop and if conditions, with a simple implementation.
Result:
Code is easier to understand.
- Remove the reference to ResourceLeak from the buffer implementations
and use wrappers instead:
- SimpleLeakAwareByteBuf and AdvancedLeakAwareByteBuf
- It is now allocator's responsibility to create a leak-aware buffer.
- Added AbstractByteBufAllocator.toLeakAwareBuffer() for easier
implementation
- Add WrappedByteBuf to reduce duplication between *LeakAwareByteBuf and
UnreleasableByteBuf
- Raise the level of leak reports to ERROR - because it will break the
app eventually
- Replace enabled/disabled property with the leak detection level
- Only print stack trace when level is ADVANCED or above to avoid user
confusion
- Add the 'leak' build profile, which enables highly detailed leak
reporting during the build
- Remove ResourceLeakException which is unsed anymore
This is needed because of otherwise the JDK itself will do an extra ByteBuffer copy with it's own pool implementation. Even worth it will be done
multiple times if the ByteBuffer is always only partial written. With this change the copy is done inside of netty using it's own allocator and
only be done one time in all cases.
- Fixes#1445
- Add PlatformDependent.maxDirectMemory()
- Ensure the default number or arenas is decreased if the max memory of the VM is not large enough.
- Fixes#1315
If a user specifies the arena size of 0, the pool is now disabled
instead of raising an IllegalArgumentException. Using this, you can
disable only heap or direct buffer pool easily. Once disabled,
PooledByteBufAllocator will delegate the allocation request to
UnpooledByteBufAllocator.
- Rename directbyDefault to preferDirect
- Add a system property 'io.netty.prederDirect' to allow a user from changing the preference on launch-time
- Merge UnpooledByteBufAllocator.DEFAULT_BY_* to DEFAULT
This pull request introduces the new default ByteBufAllocator implementation based on jemalloc, with a some differences:
* Minimum possible buffer capacity is 16 (jemalloc: 2)
* Uses binary heap with random branching (jemalloc: red-black tree)
* No thread-local cache yet (jemalloc has thread-local cache)
* Default page size is 8 KiB (jemalloc: 4 KiB)
* Default chunk size is 16 MiB (jemalloc: 2 MiB)
* Cannot allocate a buffer bigger than the chunk size (jemalloc: possible) because we don't have control over memory layout in Java. A user can work around this issue by creating a composite buffer, but it's not always a feasible option. Although 16 MiB is a pretty big default, a user's handler might need to deal with the bounded buffers when the user wants to deal with a large message.
Also, to ensure the new allocator performs good enough, I wrote a microbenchmark for it and made it a dedicated Maven module. It uses Google's Caliper framework to run and publish the test result (example)
Miscellaneous changes:
* Made some ByteBuf implementations public so that those who implements a new allocator can make use of them.
* Added ByteBufAllocator.compositeBuffer() and its variants.
* ByteBufAllocator.ioBuffer() creates a buffer with 0 capacity.
