zookeeper-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From fpj <...@git.apache.org>
Subject [GitHub] zookeeper pull request #167: ZOOKEEPER-2684 commitProcessor does not crash w...
Date Thu, 08 Jun 2017 21:43:33 GMT
Github user fpj commented on a diff in the pull request:

    --- Diff: src/java/main/org/apache/zookeeper/server/quorum/CommitProcessor.java ---
    @@ -254,24 +254,23 @@ public void run() {
                             // If session queue != null, then it is also not empty.
                             Request topPending = sessionQueue.poll();
                             if (request.cxid != topPending.cxid) {
    -                            LOG.error(
    -                                    "Got cxid 0x"
    -                                            + Long.toHexString(request.cxid)
    -                                            + " expected 0x" + Long.toHexString(
    -                                                    topPending.cxid)
    -                                    + " for client session id "
    -                                    + Long.toHexString(request.sessionId));
    -                            throw new IOException("Error: unexpected cxid for"
    -                                    + "client session");
    +                            // we can get commit requests that is not at the queue head
    +                            // session moves (see ZOOKEEPER-2684). We will just pass
    +                            // commit to the next processor and put the pending back
    +                            // a warning, we should not see this often under normal load
    +                            LOG.warn("Got request " + request + 
    +                                " but we are expecting request " + topPending);
    +                            sessionQueue.addFirst(topPending);
    +                        } else {                            
    --- End diff --
    Is it the case that for a given session, once we execute the else block once, executing
the if block would be incorrect? If so, would it make sense to have a flag per session indicating
that the else block has not been executed for the session? It might not even be a flag per
session, but perhaps a set of session ids instead that we remove from once we execute the
else block.   

If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is enabled but not working, please
contact infrastructure at infrastructure@apache.org or file a JIRA ticket
with INFRA.

View raw message