Improve performance of small websocket messages [jetty-10.0.x]#4561
Improve performance of small websocket messages [jetty-10.0.x]#4561SerCeMan wants to merge 1 commit intojetty:jetty-10.0.xfrom SerCeMan:jetty-10.0.x
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Sergey Tselovalnikov <sergeicelov@gmail.com>
|
Thanks for the PR, I would suggest you first put up a PR for a fix in the 9.4.x branch first and you might get it in for a 9.4.27 release. These changes in jetty-10 get a bit more complicated, this class is duplicated for use in the jetty or javax ws APIs, this is planned to be fixed with PR #4549. |
|
@lachlan-roberts now that the 9.4.x version is merged, are you going to merge this Jetty 10.0.x version? |
|
@joakime I think this should wait until #4549 is all done to reduce the duplication and merge conflicts. I also think we are in need of a review of the performance of all the |
|
Closing in favour of a larger review of all the MessageSink classes for jetty-10 (#4571). |
Hi, Jetty Maintainers!
We've noticed in our tests based on jetty
9.4.26.v20200117that a significant amount of CPU time is spent inSimpleBinaryMessage#appendFrame, and after running an allocation profiler, that the method is responsible for the majority of allocations (65% of all in our case).After having a closer look, it seems like even in the case of very small messages, the underlying method always allocates 65535 bytes. In our usage profile, the majority of the messages are very small, often than 100 bytes, and it seems like it's possible only to allocate the amount of memory needed in that case.
Since websocket classes were changed in jetty 10, this PR modifies
ByteArrayMessageSink.javarather than the currentSimpleBinaryMessage.java. However, if the PR looks good to you, then I'd be happy to send a separate PR for a backport.Thanks :)