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.

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

use unixNanoTime instead of time.Time in lockRequestorInfo #20140

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 24, 2024

Conversation

harshavardhana
Copy link
Member

Community Contribution License

All community contributions in this pull request are licensed to the project maintainers
under the terms of the Apache 2 license.
By creating this pull request I represent that I have the right to license the
contributions to the project maintainers under the Apache 2 license.

Description

use unixNanoTime instead of time.Time in lockRequestorInfo

Motivation and Context

Bonus: Skip Source and Quorum fields in lockArgs that are
never sent during Unlock() phase.

How to test this PR?

This is mainly a data structure optimization to reduce
the size of the message from a few bytes, while these are
It is probably a bit over the top in general scenarios; there
are precise situations where the amount of locks and unlocks
held at high concurrency can become a problem for map
based lockers when their inherent runtime memory adds
latency.

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Optimization (provides speedup with no functional changes)
  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

  • Fixes a regression (If yes, please add commit-id or PR # here)
  • Unit tests added/updated
  • Internal documentation updated
  • Create a documentation update request here

Bonus: Skip Source, Quorum fields in lockArgs that are never
sent during Unlock() phase.
@harshavardhana harshavardhana merged commit 3b21bb5 into minio:master Jul 24, 2024
20 checks passed
@harshavardhana harshavardhana deleted the sub-now branch July 24, 2024 10:24
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants