Skip to content

Remove Netty UnpooledByteBufAllocator workaround#6968

Merged
Fred1155 merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
bole/cherry-pick-6967
May 15, 2026
Merged

Remove Netty UnpooledByteBufAllocator workaround#6968
Fred1155 merged 1 commit into
masterfrom
bole/cherry-pick-6967

Conversation

@Fred1155

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor
  1. Cherry pick Remove Netty UnpooledByteBufAllocator workaround #6967 to run PR workflow

Motivation and Context

Modifications

Testing

Screenshots (if appropriate)

Types of changes

  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)

Checklist

  • I have read the CONTRIBUTING document
  • Local run of mvn install succeeds
  • My code follows the code style of this project
  • My change requires a change to the Javadoc documentation
  • I have updated the Javadoc documentation accordingly
  • I have added tests to cover my changes
  • All new and existing tests passed
  • I have added a changelog entry. Adding a new entry must be accomplished by running the scripts/new-change script and following the instructions. Commit the new file created by the script in .changes/next-release with your changes.
  • My change is to implement 1.11 parity feature and I have updated LaunchChangelog

License

  • I confirm that this pull request can be released under the Apache 2 license

If using the JDK SSL provider with Netty, we currently switch away from
Netty's default ByteBuffer allocator to the unpooled allocator, to work
around a regression in Netty 4.1.43 -
netty/netty#9768. This has been fixed in later
versions, so we should revert back to using the default.

This is essentially a revert of the relevant parts of a72f494.

Reduces allocation rate on NettyHttpClientH1Benchmark by around 45% when
using the JDK SSL provider.
@Fred1155
Fred1155 requested a review from a team as a code owner May 14, 2026 18:09

@zoewangg zoewangg left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM. Let's run anticanary to double check before merging

@Fred1155

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

LGTM. Let's run anticanary to double check before merging

Ran a 30-min canary, 7.4% less memory used, ~5% less CPU, download latency dropped 8-9%, throughput up slightly.

@Fred1155
Fred1155 added this pull request to the merge queue May 15, 2026
Merged via the queue into master with commit 3248142 May 15, 2026
12 of 13 checks passed
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This pull request has been closed and the conversation has been locked. Comments on closed PRs are hard for our team to see. If you need more assistance, please open a new issue that references this one.

@github-actions github-actions Bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 15, 2026
@zoewangg zoewangg added the perf-improvement Label for PRs that contain performance improvement changes. label May 21, 2026
@Fred1155
Fred1155 deleted the bole/cherry-pick-6967 branch July 20, 2026 20:11
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

perf-improvement Label for PRs that contain performance improvement changes.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants