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.
Motivation:
There is some cleanup that can be done.
Modifications:
- Use intializer list expression where possible
- Remove unused imports.
Result:
Cleaner code.
Motivation:
We need the memoryAddress of a direct buffer when using our native transports. For this reason ReadOnlyUnsafeDirectByteBuf.memoryAddress() should not throw.
Modifications:
- Correctly override ReadOnlyUnsafeDirectByteBuf.memoryAddress() and hasMemoryAddress()
- Add test case
Result:
Fixes [#7672].
Motivation:
We saw some timeouts on the CI when the leak detection is enabled.
Modifications:
- Use smaller number of operations in test
- Increase timeout
Result:
CI not times out.
Motivation:
ByteBufUtil.isText(...) may produce unexpected results if called concurrently on the same ByteBuffer.
Modifications:
- Don't use internalNioBuffer where it is not safe.
- Add unit test.
Result:
ByteBufUtil.isText is thread-safe.
Motivation:
Usages of HttpResponseStatus may result in more object allocation then necessary due to not looking for cached objects and the AsciiString parsing method not being used due to CharSequence method being used instead.
Modifications:
- HttpResponseDecoder should attempt to get the HttpResponseStatus from cache instead of allocating a new object
- HttpResponseStatus#parseLine(CharSequence) should check if the type is AsciiString and redirect to the AsciiString parsing method which may not require an additional toString call
- HttpResponseStatus#parseLine(AsciiString) can be optimized and doesn't require and may not require object allocation
Result:
Less allocations when dealing with HttpResponseStatus.
Motivation:
Depending on the implementation of ByteBuf nioBuffer(...) and nioBuffers(...) may either share the content or return a ByteBuffer that contains a copy of the content.
Modifications:
Fix javadocs.
Result:
Correct docs.
Motivation:
Calling ByteBuf.toString(Charset) on the same buffer from multiple threads at the same time produces unexpected results, such as various exceptions and/or corrupted output. This is because ByteBufUtil.decodeString(...) is taking the source ByteBuffer for CharsetDecoder.decode() from ByteBuf.internalNioBuffer(int, int), which is not thread-safe.
Modification:
Call ByteBuf.nioBuffer() instead of ByteBuf.internalNioBuffer() to get the source buffer to pass to CharsetDecoder.decode().
Result:
Fixes the possible race condition.
Motivation:
We did not correctly take the position into account when wrapping a ByteBuffer via ReadOnlyUnsafeDirectByteBuf as we obtained the memory address from the original ByteBuffer and not the slice we take.
Modifications:
- Correctly use the slice to obtain memory address.
- Add test case.
Result:
Fixes [#7565].
Motivation:
There is no guarantee that FastThreadLocal.onRemoval(...) is called if the FastThreadLocal is used by "non" FastThreacLocalThreads. This can lead to all sort of problems, like for example memory leaks as direct memory is not correctly cleaned up etc.
Beside this we use ThreadDeathWatcher to check if we need to release buffers back to the pool when thread local caches are collected. In the past ThreadDeathWatcher was used which will need to "wakeup" every second to check if the registered Threads are still alive. If we can ensure FastThreadLocal.onRemoval(...) is called we do not need this anymore.
Modifications:
- Introduce ObjectCleaner and use it to ensure FastThreadLocal.onRemoval(...) is always called when a Thread is collected.
- Deprecate ThreadDeathWatcher
- Add unit tests.
Result:
Consistent way of cleanup FastThreadLocals when a Thread is collected.
Motivation:
We used subList in CompositeByteBuf to remove ranges of elements from the internal storage. Beside this we also used an foreach loop in a few cases which will crate an Iterator.
Modifications:
- Use our own sub-class of ArrayList which exposes removeRange(...). This allows to remove a range of elements without an extra allocation.
- Use an old style for loop to iterate over the elements to reduce object allocations.
Result:
Less allocations.
Automatic-Module-Name entry provides a stable JDK9 module name, when Netty is used in a modular JDK9 applications. More info: http://blog.joda.org/2017/05/java-se-9-jpms-automatic-modules.html
When Netty migrates to JDK9 in the future, the entry can be replaced by actual module-info descriptor.
Modification:
The POM-s are configured to put the correct module names to the manifest.
Result:
Fixes#7218.
Motivation:
We dont need to use the ThreadDeathWatcher if we use a FastThreadLocalThread for which we wrap the Runnable and ensure we call FastThreadLocal.removeAll() once the Runnable completes.
Modifications:
- Dont use a ThreadDeathWatcher if we are sure we will call FastThreadLocal.removeAll()
- Add unit test.
Result:
Less overhead / running theads if you only allocate / deallocate from FastThreadLocalThreads.
Motivation:
AbstractByteBuf#readSlice relied upon the bounds checking of the slice operation in order to detect index out of bounds conditions. However the slice bounds checking operation allows for the slice to go beyond the writer index, and this is out of bounds for a read operation.
Modifications:
- AbstractByteBuf#readSlice and AbstractByteBuf#readRetainedSlice should ensure the desired amount of bytes are readable before taking a slice
Result:
No reading of undefined data in AbstractByteBuf#readSlice and AbstractByteBuf#readRetainedSlice.
Motivation:
When calling CompositeBytebuf.copy() and copy(...) we currently use Unpooled to allocate the buffer. This is not really correct and may produce more GC then needed. We should use the allocator that was used when creating the CompositeByteBuf to allocate the new buffer which may be for example the PooledByteBufAllocator.
Modifications:
- Use alloc() to allocate the new buffer.
- Add tests
- Fix tests that depend on the copy to be backed by an byte-array without checking hasArray() first.
Result:
Fixes [#7393].
Motivation:
Even if it's a super micro-optimization (most JVM could optimize such
cases in runtime), in theory (and according to some perf tests) it
may help a bit. It also makes a code more clear and allows you to
access such methods in the test scope directly, without instance of
the class.
Modifications:
Add 'static' modifier for all methods, where it possible. Mostly in
test scope.
Result:
Cleaner code with proper 'static' modifiers.
Motivation:
Javadoc of the `ByteBufUtil#copy(AsciiString, int, ByteBuf, int, int)` is incorrect.
Modifications:
Fix it.
Result:
The description of the `#copy` method is not misleading.
Motivation:
In the `ByteBufOutputStream` we can use an appropriate methods of `ByteBuf`
to reduce calls of virtual methods and do not copying converting logic.
Modifications:
- Use an appropriate methods of `ByteBuf`
- Remove redundant conversions (int -> byte, int -> char).
- Use `ByteBuf#writeCharSequence` in the `writeBytes(String)'.
Result:
Less code duplication. A `writeBytes(String)` method is faster.
No unnecessary conversions. More consistent and cleaner code.
Configuring this is tough because there is split between highly shared (and accessed) objects and lightly accessed objects.
Modification:
There are a number of changes here. In relative order of importance:
API / Functionality changes:
* Max records and max sample records are gone. Only "target" records, the number of records tries to retain is exposed.
* Records are sampled based on the number of already stored records. The likelihood of recording a new sample is `2^(-n)`, where `n` is the number of currently stored elements.
* Records are stored in a concurrent stack structure rather than a list. This avoids a head and tail. Since the stack is only read once, there is no need to maintain head and tail pointers
* The properties of this imply that the very first and very last access are always recorded. When deciding to sample, the top element is replaced rather than pushed.
* Samples that happen between the first and last accesses now have a chance of being recorded. Previously only the final few were kept.
* Sampling is no longer deterministic. Previously, a deterministic access pattern meant that you could conceivably always miss some access points.
* Sampling has a linear ramp for low values and and exponentially backs off roughly equal to 2^n. This means that for 1,000,000 accesses, about 20 will actually be kept. I have an elegant proof for this which is too large to fit in this commit message.
Code changes:
* All locks are gone. Because sampling rarely needs to do a write, there is almost 0 contention. The dropped records counter is slightly contentious, but this could be removed or changed to a LongAdder. This was not done because of memory concerns.
* Stack trace exclusion is done outside of RLD. Classes can opt to remove some of their methods.
* Stack trace exclusion is faster, since it uses String.equals, often getting a pointer compare due to interning. Previously it used contains()
* Leak printing is outputted fairly differently. I tried to preserve as much of the original formatting as possible, but some things didn't make sense to keep.
Result:
More useful leak reporting.
Faster:
```
Before:
Benchmark (recordTimes) Mode Cnt Score Error Units
ResourceLeakDetectorRecordBenchmark.record 8 thrpt 20 136293.404 ± 7669.454 ops/s
ResourceLeakDetectorRecordBenchmark.record 16 thrpt 20 72805.720 ± 3710.864 ops/s
ResourceLeakDetectorRecordBenchmark.recordWithHint 8 thrpt 20 139131.215 ± 4882.751 ops/s
ResourceLeakDetectorRecordBenchmark.recordWithHint 16 thrpt 20 74146.313 ± 4999.246 ops/s
After:
Benchmark (recordTimes) Mode Cnt Score Error Units
ResourceLeakDetectorRecordBenchmark.record 8 thrpt 20 155281.969 ± 5301.399 ops/s
ResourceLeakDetectorRecordBenchmark.record 16 thrpt 20 77866.239 ± 3821.054 ops/s
ResourceLeakDetectorRecordBenchmark.recordWithHint 8 thrpt 20 153360.036 ± 8611.353 ops/s
ResourceLeakDetectorRecordBenchmark.recordWithHint 16 thrpt 20 78670.804 ± 2399.149 ops/s
```
Motivation:
Highly retained and released objects have contention on their ref
count. Currently, the ref count is updated using compareAndSet
with care to make sure the count doesn't overflow, double free, or
revive the object.
Profiling has shown that a non trivial (~1%) of CPU time on gRPC
latency benchmarks is from the ref count updating.
Modification:
Rather than pessimistically assuming the ref count will be invalid,
optimistically update it assuming it will be. If the update was
wrong, then use the slow path to revert the change and throw an
execption. Most of the time, the ref counts are correct.
This changes from using compareAndSet to getAndAdd, which emits a
different CPU instruction on x86 (CMPXCHG to XADD). Because the
CPU knows it will modifiy the memory, it can avoid contention.
On a highly contended machine, this can be about 2x faster.
There is a downside to the new approach. The ref counters can
temporarily enter invalid states if over retained or over released.
The code does handle these overflow and underflow scenarios, but it
is possible that another concurrent access may push the failure to
a different location. For example:
Time 1 Thread 1: obj.retain(INT_MAX - 1)
Time 2 Thread 1: obj.retain(2)
Time 2 Thread 2: obj.retain(1)
Previously Thread 2 would always succeed and Thread 1 would always
fail on the second access. Now, thread 2 could fail while thread 1
is rolling back its change.
====
There are a few reasons why I think this is okay:
1. Buggy code is going to have bugs. An exception _is_ going to be
thrown. This just causes the other threads to notice the state
is messed up and stop early.
2. If high retention counts are a use case, then ref count should
be a long rather than an int.
3. The critical section is greatly reduced compared to the previous
version, so the likelihood of this happening is lower
4. On error, the code always rollsback the change atomically, so
there is no possibility of corruption.
Result:
Faster refcounting
```
BEFORE:
Benchmark (delay) Mode Cnt Score Error Units
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_contended 1 sample 2901361 804.579 ± 1.835 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_contended 10 sample 3038729 785.376 ± 16.471 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_contended 100 sample 2899401 817.392 ± 6.668 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_contended 1000 sample 3650566 2077.700 ± 0.600 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_contended 10000 sample 3005467 19949.334 ± 4.243 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_uncontended 1 sample 456091 48.610 ± 1.162 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_uncontended 10 sample 732051 62.599 ± 0.815 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_uncontended 100 sample 778925 228.629 ± 1.205 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_uncontended 1000 sample 633682 2002.987 ± 2.856 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_uncontended 10000 sample 506442 19735.345 ± 12.312 ns/op
AFTER:
Benchmark (delay) Mode Cnt Score Error Units
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_contended 1 sample 3761980 383.436 ± 1.315 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_contended 10 sample 3667304 474.429 ± 1.101 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_contended 100 sample 3039374 479.267 ± 0.435 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_contended 1000 sample 3709210 2044.603 ± 0.989 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_contended 10000 sample 3011591 19904.227 ± 18.025 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_uncontended 1 sample 494975 52.269 ± 8.345 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_uncontended 10 sample 771094 62.290 ± 0.795 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_uncontended 100 sample 763230 235.044 ± 1.552 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_uncontended 1000 sample 634037 2006.578 ± 3.574 ns/op
AbstractReferenceCountedByteBufBenchmark.retainRelease_uncontended 10000 sample 506284 19742.605 ± 13.729 ns/op
```
Motivation:
Most, but not all defaults are statically exposed on
PooledByteBufAllocator. This makes it cumbersome to make a custom
allocator where most of the defaults remain the same.
Modification:
Expose useCacheForAllThreads, and Direct preferred. The latter is
needed because it is under the internal package, and public code
should probably not depend on it.
Result:
More customizeable allocators
Motivation:
The constrcutors a protected atm but the classes are public. We should make the constructors public as well to make it easier to write your own ByteBufAllocator.
Modifications:
Change constructors to be public and add some javadocs.
Result:
Easier to create own ByteBufAllocator.
