Motivation:
When always triggered fireChannelWritabilityChanged() directly when the update the pending bytes in the ChannelOutboundBuffer was made from within the EventLoop. This is problematic as this can cause some re-entrance issue if the user has a custom ChannelOutboundHandler that does multiple writes from within the write(...) method and also has a handler that will intercept the channelWritabilityChanged event and trigger another write when the Channel is writable. This can also easily happen if the user just use a MessageToMessageEncoder subclass and triggers a write from channelWritabilityChanged().
Modification:
- Always invoke the fireChannelWritabilityChanged() later on the EventLoop.
- Only trigger the fireChannelWritabilityChanged() if the channel is still active.
- when write(...) is called from outside the EventLoop we only increase the pending bytes in the outbound buffer (so that Channel.isWritable() is updated directly) but not cause a fireChannelWritabilityChanged(). The fireChannelWritabilityChanged() is then triggered once the task is picked up by the EventLoop as usual.
Result:
No more re-entrance possible because of writes from within channelWritabilityChanged(...) method.
Motivation:
To guard against the case that a user will enqueue a lot of empty or small buffers and so raise an OOME we need to also take the overhead of the ChannelOutboundBuffer / PendingWriteQueue into account when detect if a Channel is writable or not. This is related to #5856.
Modifications:
When calculate the memory for an message that is enqueued also add some extra bytes depending on the implementation.
Result:
Better guard against OOME.
Motivation:
The API documentation in ChannelConfig states that a a channel is writable,
if the number of pending bytes is below the low watermark and a
channel is not writable, if the number of pending bytes exceeds the high
watermark.
Therefore, we should use < operators instead of <= as well as > instead of >=.
Using <= and >= is also problematic, if the low watermark is equal to the high watermark,
as then a channel could be both writable and unwritable with the same number of pending
bytes (depending on whether remove() or addMessage() is called first).
The use of <= and >= was introduced in PR https://github.com/netty/netty/pull/3036, but
I don't understand why, as there doesn't seem to have been any discussion around that.
Modifications:
Use < and > operators instead of <= and >=.
Result:
High and low watermarks are treated as stated in the API docs.
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:
Revert d0943dcd30. Delaying the notification of writability change may lead to notification being missed. This is a ABA type of concurrency problem.
Modifications:
- Revert d0943dcd30.
Result:
channelWritabilityChange will be called on every change, and will not be suppressed due to ABA scenario.
Motivation:
When always triggered fireChannelWritabilityChanged() directly when the update the pending bytes in the ChannelOutboundBuffer was made from within the EventLoop. This is problematic as this can cause some re-entrance issue if the user has a custom ChannelOutboundHandler that does multiple writes from within the write(...) method and also has a handler that will intercept the channelWritabilityChanged event and trigger another write when the Channel is writable. This can also easily happen if the user just use a MessageToMessageEncoder subclass and triggers a write from channelWritabilityChanged().
Beside this we also triggered fireChannelWritabilityChanged() too often when a user did a write from outside the EventLoop. In this case we increased the pending bytes of the outboundbuffer before scheduled the actual write and decreased again before the write then takes place. Both of this may trigger a fireChannelWritabilityChanged() event which then may be re-triggered once the actual write ends again in the ChannelOutboundBuffer.
The third gotcha was that a user may get multiple events even if the writability of the channel not changed.
Modification:
- Always invoke the fireChannelWritabilityChanged() later on the EventLoop.
- Only trigger the fireChannelWritabilityChanged() if the channel is still active and if the writability of the channel changed. No need to cause events that were already triggered without a real writability change.
- when write(...) is called from outside the EventLoop we only increase the pending bytes in the outbound buffer (so that Channel.isWritable() is updated directly) but not cause a fireChannelWritabilityChanged(). The fireChannelWritabilityChanged() is then triggered once the task is picked up by the EventLoop as usual.
Result:
No more re-entrance possible because of writes from within channelWritabilityChanged(...) method and no events without a real writability change.
Motivation:
ChannelMetadata has a field minMaxMessagesPerRead which can be confusing. There are also some cases where static instances are used and the default value for channel type is not being applied.
Modifications:
- use a default value which is set unconditionally to simplify
- make sure static instances of MaxMessagesRecvByteBufAllocator are not used if the intention is that the default maxMessagesPerRead should be derived from the channel type.
Result:
Less confusing interfaces in ChannelMetadata and ChannelConfig. Default maxMessagesPerRead is correctly applied.
Related: #3212
Motivation:
When SslHandler and ChunkedWriteHandler exists in a pipeline together,
it is possible that ChunkedWriteHandler.channelWritabilityChanged()
invokes SslHandler.flush() and vice versa. Because they can feed each
other (i.e. ChunkedWriteHandler.channelWritabilityChanged() ->
SslHandler.flush() -> ChunkedWriteHandler.channelWritabilityChanged() ->
..), they can fall into an inconsistent state due to reentrance (e.g.
bad MAC record at the remote peer due to incorrect ordering.)
Modifications:
- Trigger channelWritabilityChanged() using EventLoop.execute() when
there's a chance where channelWritabilityChanged() can cause a
reentrance issue
- Fix test failures caused by the modification
Result:
Fix the handler reentrance issues related with a
channelWritabilityChanged() event
Related: #2945
Motivation:
Some special handlers such as TrafficShapingHandler need to override the
writability of a Channel to throttle the outbound traffic.
Modifications:
Add a new indexed property called 'user-defined writability flag' to
ChannelOutboundBuffer so that a handler can override the writability of
a Channel easily.
Result:
A handler can override the writability of a Channel using an unsafe API.
For example:
Channel ch = ...;
ch.unsafe().outboundBuffer().setUserDefinedWritability(1, false);
Motivation:
We did various changes related to the ChannelOutboundBuffer in 4.0 branch. This commit port all of them over and so make sure our branches are synced in terms of these changes.
Related to [#2734], [#2709], [#2729], [#2710] and [#2693] .
Modification:
Port all changes that was done on the ChannelOutboundBuffer.
This includes the port of the following commits:
- 73dfd7c01b
- 997d8c32d2
- e282e504f1
- 5e5d1a58fd
- 8ee3575e72
- d6f0d12a86
- 16e50765d1
- 3f3e66c31a
Result:
- Less memory usage by ChannelOutboundBuffer
- Same code as in 4.0 branch
- Make it possible to use ChannelOutboundBuffer with Channel implementation that not extends AbstractChannel
This also does factor out some logic of ChannelOutboundBuffer. Mainly we not need nioBuffers() for many
transports and also not need to copy from heap to direct buffer. So this functionality was moved to
NioSocketChannelOutboundBuffer. Also introduce a EpollChannelOutboundBuffer which makes use of
memory addresses for all the writes to reduce GC pressure
Norman Maurer
buchgr
Scott Mitchell
Trustin Lee
Norman Maurer