hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hadoop QA (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-8877) Reentrant row locks
Date Fri, 12 Jul 2013 23:45:48 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8877?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13707555#comment-13707555

Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-8877:

{color:red}-1 overall{color}.  Here are the results of testing the latest attachment 
  against trunk revision .

    {color:green}+1 @author{color}.  The patch does not contain any @author tags.

    {color:red}-1 tests included{color}.  The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified
                        Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch.
                        Also please list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch.

    {color:red}-1 patch{color}.  The patch command could not apply the patch.

Console output: https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6319//console

This message is automatically generated.
> Reentrant row locks
> -------------------
>                 Key: HBASE-8877
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8877
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: Coprocessors, regionserver
>            Reporter: Dave Latham
>            Assignee: Dave Latham
>             Fix For: 0.95.2
>         Attachments: hbase-8877-0.94-microbenchmark.txt, HBASE-8877-0.94.patch, HBASE-8877.patch,
HBASE-8877-v2.patch, HBASE-8877-v3.patch, hbase-8877-v4-microbenchmark.txt, HBASE-8877-v4.patch
> HBASE-8806 revealed performance problems with batch mutations failing to reacquire the
same row locks.  It looks like HBASE-8806 will use a less intrusive change for 0.94 to have
batch mutations track their own row locks and not attempt to reacquire them.  Another approach
will be to support reentrant row locks directly.  This allows simplifying a great deal of
calling code to no longer track and pass around lock ids.
> One affect this change will have is changing the RegionObserver coprocessor's methods
preBatchMutate and postBatchMutate from taking a {{MiniBatchOperationInProgress<Pair<Mutation,
Integer>> miniBatchOp}} to taking a {{MiniBatchOperationInProgress<Mutation> miniBatchOp}}.
 I don't believe CPs should be relying on these lock ids, but that's a potential incompatibility.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

View raw message