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

perf: log4j overhead for inactive markers is too high #16921

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Dec 7, 2024

Conversation

OlegMazurov
Copy link
Contributor

Description:
Downgrade some logs to DEBUG to reduce overhead.

Related issue(s):

Fixes #16914

Notes for reviewer:

Checklist

  • Documented (Code comments, README, etc.)
  • Tested (unit, integration, etc.)

Signed-off-by: Oleg Mazurov <oleg.mazurov@swirldslabs.com>
@OlegMazurov OlegMazurov added the Performance Issues related to performance concerns. label Dec 5, 2024
@OlegMazurov OlegMazurov added this to the v0.58 milestone Dec 5, 2024
@OlegMazurov OlegMazurov self-assigned this Dec 5, 2024
@OlegMazurov OlegMazurov requested review from a team as code owners December 5, 2024 00:06
@OlegMazurov OlegMazurov changed the title downgrade logs to DEBUG to reduce overhead perf: log4j overhead for inactive markers is too high Dec 5, 2024
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 5, 2024

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 74 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 63.87%. Comparing base (faee49d) to head (445af7a).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
...swirlds/platform/gossip/shadowgraph/SyncUtils.java 0.00% 55 Missing ⚠️
...m/swirlds/platform/consensus/CandidateWitness.java 0.00% 6 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
.../main/java/com/swirlds/platform/ConsensusImpl.java 0.00% 5 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...com/swirlds/platform/consensus/RoundElections.java 0.00% 3 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...rm/gossip/shadowgraph/ShadowgraphSynchronizer.java 0.00% 2 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files

Impacted file tree graph

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             develop   #16921      +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage      63.89%   63.87%   -0.03%     
  Complexity     20603    20603              
=============================================
  Files           2541     2541              
  Lines          95300    95314      +14     
  Branches        9957     9967      +10     
=============================================
- Hits           60894    60882      -12     
- Misses         30803    30827      +24     
- Partials        3603     3605       +2     
Files with missing lines Coverage Δ
...rm/gossip/shadowgraph/ShadowgraphSynchronizer.java 0.81% <0.00%> (ø)
...com/swirlds/platform/consensus/RoundElections.java 69.09% <0.00%> (-6.84%) ⬇️
.../main/java/com/swirlds/platform/ConsensusImpl.java 75.75% <0.00%> (-1.45%) ⬇️
...m/swirlds/platform/consensus/CandidateWitness.java 69.23% <0.00%> (-26.77%) ⬇️
...swirlds/platform/gossip/shadowgraph/SyncUtils.java 0.00% <0.00%> (ø)

... and 9 files with indirect coverage changes

Impacted file tree graph

Copy link

codacy-production bot commented Dec 5, 2024

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation Diff coverage
-0.02% (target: -1.00%) 4.05%
Coverage variation details
Coverable lines Covered lines Coverage
Common ancestor commit (faee49d) 98065 64306 65.57%
Head commit (445af7a) 98079 (+14) 64296 (-10) 65.56% (-0.02%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details
Coverable lines Covered lines Diff coverage
Pull request (#16921) 74 3 4.05%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more

Copy link
Contributor

@alex-kuzmin-hg alex-kuzmin-hg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Approved - looks good

@OlegMazurov OlegMazurov merged commit e70582e into develop Dec 7, 2024
44 of 46 checks passed
@OlegMazurov OlegMazurov deleted the 16914-D-log4j-overhead branch December 7, 2024 03:48
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Performance Issues related to performance concerns.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Log4j overhead for inactive markers is too high
4 participants