Mailing-List: contact notifications-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jira@apache.org
Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 10:30:05 +0000 (UTC)
From: "Josh Elser (JIRA)" <jira@apache.org>
To: notifications@accumulo.apache.org
Message-ID: <JIRA.12711547.1398883700576.360394.1400236205016@arcas>
In-Reply-To: <JIRA.12711547.1398883700576@arcas>
References: <JIRA.12711547.1398883700576@arcas>
Subject: [jira] [Commented] (ACCUMULO-2764) Stopping MAC before it's
 processes have fully started causes an indefinite hang
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2764?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13998846#comment-13998846 ] 

Josh Elser commented on ACCUMULO-2764:
--------------------------------------

We do the same destroy() && waitFor() in 1.5 too.

> Stopping MAC before it's processes have fully started causes an indefinite hang
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ACCUMULO-2764
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ACCUMULO-2764
>             Project: Accumulo
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: mini
>    Affects Versions: 1.5.1, 1.6.0
>         Environment: OpenJDK 1.6.0, CentOS 6.5, 2CPU, 6GB RAM (virtual hardware)
>            Reporter: Christopher Tubbs
>             Fix For: 1.5.2, 1.6.1, 1.7.0
>
>
> I saw this testing 1.6.0-RC5.
> Calling process.destroy() and then process.waitFor(), as MiniAccumuloCluster does in it's stop method, before the process is fully started, appears to create an indefinite hang.
> I saw this most recently in MiniAccumuloClusterGCTest.testAccurateProcessListReturned, which gets a ProcessReference and then immediately shuts down MAC, though it was also the root cause of ACCUMULO-2756. In this instance, the test got stuck in the MAC teardown.
> {code:java}
> "main" prio=10 tid=0x00007f3cf4008800 nid=0x2b19 in Object.wait() [0x00007f3cf8f9c000]
>    java.lang.Thread.State: WAITING (on object monitor)
>         at java.lang.Object.wait(Native Method)
>         - waiting on <0x00000000e29dd2e8> (a java.lang.UNIXProcess)
>         at java.lang.Object.wait(Object.java:502)
>         at java.lang.UNIXProcess.waitFor(UNIXProcess.java:181)
>         - locked <0x00000000e29dd2e8> (a java.lang.UNIXProcess)
>         at org.apache.accumulo.minicluster.impl.MiniAccumuloClusterImpl.stop(MiniAccumuloClusterImpl.java:607)
>         at org.apache.accumulo.minicluster.impl.MiniAccumuloClusterGCTest.tearDownMiniCluster(MiniAccumuloClusterGCTest.java:74)
>         at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
>         at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57)
>         at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
>         at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:622)
>         at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:47)
>         at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:12)
>         at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:44)
>         at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:33)
>         at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:309)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.execute(JUnit4Provider.java:264)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.executeTestSet(JUnit4Provider.java:153)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.junit4.JUnit4Provider.invoke(JUnit4Provider.java:124)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.invokeProviderInSameClassLoader(ForkedBooter.java:200)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.runSuitesInProcess(ForkedBooter.java:153)
>         at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.main(ForkedBooter.java:103)
> {code}
> It appears that destroy() doesn't actually succeed in destroying a process which is still starting, so the waitFor() waits indefinitely. I haven't debugged further. It may be a JVM bug, or a limitation in the java Process API, or some UNIX signal handling quirk with process instantiation that destroy() cannot know.
> One fix could be to make start() wait until the metadata table can be scanned before it returns, to ensure all processes are actually running and ready. Another fix would be to have the teardown code try another destroy if waitFor() doesn't return after a reasonable amount of time.


--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)