ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrak...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Date Fri, 18 Mar 2016 16:39:22 GMT
On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 7:57 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Yakov,
>
> yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
> please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed.
>
> Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
> I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
> release).
>

This would be awesome :)


>
> Best regrads,
> Vladisav
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@gridgain.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
> >
> > Thanks!
> > --
> > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
> > *GridGain Systems*
> > www.gridgain.com
> >
> > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org>:
> >
> > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> > >
> > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> > >
> > > Anton V. there is a question regarding optimized-classnames.properties.
> > > Can you please respond in ticket?
> > >
> > >
> > > --Yakov
> > >
> > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning ticket
> to
> > >> myself.
> > >>
> > >> --Yakov
> > >>
> > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the next
> > >>> release.
> > >>>
> > >>> Best regards,
> > >>> Vladisav
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > Folks,
> > >>> >
> > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has
the
> > same
> > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
> > changed
> > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock
is
> > held.
> > >>> The
> > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock()
issue
> > >>> can be
> > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> > currently
> > >>> > works.
> > >>> >
> > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name" message,
> my
> > >>> first
> > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups which
> led
> > >>> to
> > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
> > >>> re-test
> > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> > structures?
> > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when
> I'm
> > >>> done
> > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message