Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support action-level concurrency in Java runtime. #130

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Support action-level concurrency in Java runtime. #130

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
18 changes: 17 additions & 1 deletion core/java8/proxy/src/main/java/org/apache/openwhisk/runtime/java/action/Proxy.java
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -30,6 +30,9 @@
import java.util.HashMap;
import java.util.Map;
import java.util.Set;
import java.util.concurrent.ArrayBlockingQueue;
import java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor;
import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;

import com.google.gson.JsonElement;
import com.google.gson.JsonObject;
Expand All @@ -48,7 +51,20 @@ public Proxy(int port) throws IOException {

this.server.createContext("/init", new InitHandler());
this.server.createContext("/run", new RunHandler());
this.server.setExecutor(null); // creates a default executor

if (Boolean.parseBoolean(System.getenv("__OW_ALLOW_CONCURRENT"))) {
ThreadPoolExecutor executor = new ThreadPoolExecutor(
10, // Core size.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure how we should optimally determine this number since every function will have a different concurrency setting. Should it err on the side of maximizing low concurrency, i.e. most functions probably won't increase their setting past 1.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Agreed.

25, // Max size.
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure if we want to set the max pool size as this becomes a hard bound on the language when the openwhisk setting per function is defined elsewhere. So the user would have to know explicitly that for java they can't increase their concurrency past 25 without getting performance degradation even if they aren't cpu bounded.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yeah. This was basically an arbitrary setting on my part as I was moreso interested in getting something working. We could just as well set the max pool size to something else (or a configurable limit).

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It would be a much larger change for the system to pass in the configured action limit as a part of the payload on the init request (and not every language would need the value so the system would need special logic per language for this). I think leaving it unbounded for now is probably the easiest way to get the initial working capability and can be optimized later if needed

10 * 60, // Idle timeout.
TimeUnit.SECONDS,
new ArrayBlockingQueue<Runnable>(30)
);
executor.allowCoreThreadTimeOut(true);
this.server.setExecutor(executor);
} else {
this.server.setExecutor(null); // Default executor.
}
}

public void start() {
Expand Down