hbase-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "stack (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (HBASE-14268) Improve KeyLocker
Date Sat, 10 Oct 2015 02:31:05 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14268?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14951513#comment-14951513
] 

stack commented on HBASE-14268:
-------------------------------

Are we into a new place where our patch builds are killing each other:

/home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/test-framework/dev-support/test-patch.sh:
line 838: 29466 Killed                  $MVN clean test -Dsurefire.rerunFailingTestsCount=2
-P runAllTests -D${PROJECT_NAME}PatchProcess
We're ok: there is no zombie test

test-patch is doing this:

  ### Kill any rogue build processes from the last attempt
  condemnedCount=`$PS auxwww | $GREP ${PROJECT_NAME}PatchProcess | $AWK '{print $2}' | $AWK
'BEGIN {total = 0} {total += 1} END {print total}'`
  echo "WARNING: $condemnedCount rogue build processes detected, terminating."
  $PS auxwww | $GREP ${PROJECT_NAME}PatchProcess | $AWK '{print $2}' | /usr/bin/xargs -t -I
{} /bin/kill -9 {} > /dev/null

In this case it did this:

WARNING: 2 rogue build processes detected, terminating.
/bin/kill -9 29055 
/bin/kill -9 29461 

...and then our process was killed with this "test-patch.sh: line 838: 29466 Killed ".. Ours
was a different PID

Maybe I should remove this killing code too only I've already removed killing of surefirebooters
that were running concurrently

> Improve KeyLocker
> -----------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-14268
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14268
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: util
>            Reporter: Hiroshi Ikeda
>            Assignee: Hiroshi Ikeda
>            Priority: Minor
>             Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.3.0
>
>         Attachments: 14268-V5.patch, HBASE-14268-V2.patch, HBASE-14268-V3.patch, HBASE-14268-V4.patch,
HBASE-14268-V5.patch, HBASE-14268-V5.patch, HBASE-14268-V6.patch, HBASE-14268-V7.patch, HBASE-14268-V7.patch,
HBASE-14268-V7.patch, HBASE-14268-V7.patch, HBASE-14268-V7.patch, HBASE-14268-V7.patch, HBASE-14268-V7.patch,
HBASE-14268.patch, KeyLockerIncrKeysPerformance.java, KeyLockerPerformance.java, ReferenceTestApp.java
>
>
> 1. In the implementation of {{KeyLocker}} it uses atomic variables inside a synchronized
block, which doesn't make sense. Moreover, logic inside the synchronized block is not trivial
so that it makes less performance in heavy multi-threaded environment.
> 2. {{KeyLocker}} gives an instance of {{RentrantLock}} which is already locked, but it
doesn't follow the contract of {{ReentrantLock}} because you are not allowed to freely invoke
lock/unlock methods under that contract. That introduces a potential risk; Whenever you see
a variable of the type {{RentrantLock}}, you should pay attention to what the included instance
is coming from.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message