hbase-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From st...@duboce.net
Subject Re: Review Request: HBASE-2915 Deadlock between HRegion.ICV and HRegion.close
Date Fri, 20 Aug 2010 23:27:42 GMT


> On 2010-08-20 15:57:34, stack wrote:
> > /trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/HRegion.java, line 507
> > <http://review.cloudera.org/r/691/diff/1/?file=7612#file7612line507>
> >
> >     I suppose this order is ok if the first thing we do on entrance to HRegion is
get the read lock before check of closing.
> 
> Jean-Daniel Cryans wrote:
>     So I just redid that part. setClosing is first taken so that when the client threads
arrive they can fast fail by looking at closing.get before trying to get the readLock.

Don't you have to check again the setClosing after you get the read lock?


> On 2010-08-20 15:57:34, stack wrote:
> > /trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/HRegion.java, line 712
> > <http://review.cloudera.org/r/691/diff/1/?file=7612#file7612line712>
> >
> >     Seems like you could use your opentransaction/closetransaction methods here
and in flush too to be consistent?
> 
> Jean-Daniel Cryans wrote:
>     Yeah the issue with compact and flush is that the callers don't expect to see NSRE,
the want null values.

OK. Not important. This is deep internal stuff or make a version that takes a flag on whether
to throw exception (default throws exception .. might get messy though... not important).


- stack


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://review.cloudera.org/r/691/#review974
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2010-08-19 14:59:41, Jean-Daniel Cryans wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://review.cloudera.org/r/691/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2010-08-19 14:59:41)
> 
> 
> Review request for hbase.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> This patch removes newScannerLock and renames splitAndClose lock to just "lock". Every
operation is now required to obtain the read lock on "lock" before doing anything (including
getting a row lock). This is done by calling openRegionTransaction inside a try statement
and by calling closeRegionTransaction in finally.
> 
> flushcache got refactored some more in order to do the locking in the proper order; first
get the read lock, then do the writestate handling.
> 
> Finally, it removes the need to have a writeLock when flushing when subclassers give
atomic work do to via internalPreFlushcacheCommit. This means that this patch breaks external
contribs. This is required to keep our whole locking mechanism simpler.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug HBASE-2915.
>     http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-2915
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   /trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/HRegion.java 987300 
>   /trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/SplitTransaction.java 987300

>   /trunk/src/test/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/regionserver/TestSplitTransaction.java
987300 
> 
> Diff: http://review.cloudera.org/r/691/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 5 concurrent ICV threads + randomWrite 3 + scans on a single RS. I'm also in the process
of deploying it on a cluster.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Jean-Daniel
> 
>


Mime
View raw message