Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[BugFix] Fix Attempt to unlock lock, not locked by current locker in mv refresh (backport #51884) #52647

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 5, 2024
Merged

[BugFix] Fix Attempt to unlock lock, not locked by current locker in mv refresh (backport #51884) #52647

merged 2 commits into from
Nov 5, 2024

Conversation

mergify[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@mergify mergify bot commented Nov 5, 2024 •
edited by wanpengfei-git
Loading

Why I'm doing:

Fix two bugs in using mv:

  1. refresh mvs may occur some exceptions below:
2024-10-14 12:32:08.193+08:00 WARN (starrocks-taskrun-pool-5|107576) [TaskRunExecutor.lambda$executeTaskRun$0():65] failed to execute TaskRun.
com.starrocks.sql.common.DmlException: Refresh materialized view hitted_mv_dw_bbzdb_bas_servicetype failed after retrying 1 times(try-lock 0 times), error-msg : java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException: Attempt to unlock lock, not locked by current locker
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.MultiUserLock.release(MultiUserLock.java:182)
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.LockManager.release(LockManager.java:275)
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.release(Locker.java:106)
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.unLockTablesWithIntensiveDbLock(Locker.java:417)
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.tryLockTableWithIntensiveDbLock(Locker.java:521)
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.tryLockTableWithIntensiveDbLock(Locker.java:504)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.checkMvToRefreshedPartitions(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:280)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doRefreshMaterializedView(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:412)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doRefreshMaterializedViewWithRetry(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:366)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doMvRefresh(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:325)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.processTaskRun(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:199)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.TaskRun.executeTaskRun(TaskRun.java:270)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.TaskRunExecutor.lambda$executeTaskRun$0(TaskRunExecutor.java:58)
	at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$AsyncSupply.run(CompletableFuture.java:1700)
	at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1128)
	at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:628)
	at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:829)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doRefreshMaterializedViewWithRetry(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:387) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doMvRefresh(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:325) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.processTaskRun(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:199) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.TaskRun.executeTaskRun(TaskRun.java:270) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.TaskRunExecutor.lambda$executeTaskRun$0(TaskRunExecutor.java:58) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$AsyncSupply.run(CompletableFuture.java:1700) ~[?:?]
	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1128) ~[?:?]
	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:628) ~[?:?]
	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:829) ~[?:?]
Caused by: java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException: Attempt to unlock lock, not locked by current locker
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.MultiUserLock.release(MultiUserLock.java:182) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.LockManager.release(LockManager.java:275) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.release(Locker.java:106) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.unLockTablesWithIntensiveDbLock(Locker.java:417) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.tryLockTableWithIntensiveDbLock(Locker.java:521) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.tryLockTableWithIntensiveDbLock(Locker.java:504) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.checkMvToRefreshedPartitions(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:280) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doRefreshMaterializedView(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:412) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doRefreshMaterializedViewWithRetry(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:366) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	... 8 more
  1. query will be rewritten wrong if contains col in (upper('a'), lower('a');

What I'm doing:

    1. Unlock is not safe if batch locks fail, add try-catch to avoid this.
    1. Using Maps.newTreeMap() instead of CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER to avoid this.

Fixes #issue

What type of PR is this:

  • BugFix
  • Feature
  • Enhancement
  • Refactor
  • UT
  • Doc
  • Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

  • Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
  • No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

  • Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
  • Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
  • Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
  • Feature removed
  • Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

  • I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
  • This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
    • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
  • This is a backport pr

Bugfix cherry-pick branch check:

  • I have checked the version labels which the pr will be auto-backported to the target branch
    • 3.3
    • 3.2
    • 3.1
    • 3.0
    • 2.5
This is an automatic backport of pull request #51884 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com). ## Why I'm doing:

Fix two bugs in using mv:

  1. refresh mvs may occur some exceptions below:
2024-10-14 12:32:08.193+08:00 WARN (starrocks-taskrun-pool-5|107576) [TaskRunExecutor.lambda$executeTaskRun$0():65] failed to execute TaskRun.
com.starrocks.sql.common.DmlException: Refresh materialized view hitted_mv_dw_bbzdb_bas_servicetype failed after retrying 1 times(try-lock 0 times), error-msg : java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException: Attempt to unlock lock, not locked by current locker
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.MultiUserLock.release(MultiUserLock.java:182)
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.LockManager.release(LockManager.java:275)
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.release(Locker.java:106)
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.unLockTablesWithIntensiveDbLock(Locker.java:417)
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.tryLockTableWithIntensiveDbLock(Locker.java:521)
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.tryLockTableWithIntensiveDbLock(Locker.java:504)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.checkMvToRefreshedPartitions(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:280)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doRefreshMaterializedView(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:412)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doRefreshMaterializedViewWithRetry(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:366)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doMvRefresh(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:325)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.processTaskRun(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:199)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.TaskRun.executeTaskRun(TaskRun.java:270)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.TaskRunExecutor.lambda$executeTaskRun$0(TaskRunExecutor.java:58)
	at java.base/java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$AsyncSupply.run(CompletableFuture.java:1700)
	at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1128)
	at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:628)
	at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:829)
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doRefreshMaterializedViewWithRetry(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:387) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doMvRefresh(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:325) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.processTaskRun(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:199) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.TaskRun.executeTaskRun(TaskRun.java:270) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.TaskRunExecutor.lambda$executeTaskRun$0(TaskRunExecutor.java:58) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at java.util.concurrent.CompletableFuture$AsyncSupply.run(CompletableFuture.java:1700) ~[?:?]
	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1128) ~[?:?]
	at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:628) ~[?:?]
	at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:829) ~[?:?]
Caused by: java.lang.IllegalMonitorStateException: Attempt to unlock lock, not locked by current locker
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.MultiUserLock.release(MultiUserLock.java:182) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.LockManager.release(LockManager.java:275) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.release(Locker.java:106) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.unLockTablesWithIntensiveDbLock(Locker.java:417) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.tryLockTableWithIntensiveDbLock(Locker.java:521) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.common.util.concurrent.lock.Locker.tryLockTableWithIntensiveDbLock(Locker.java:504) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.checkMvToRefreshedPartitions(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:280) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doRefreshMaterializedView(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:412) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	at com.starrocks.scheduler.PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.doRefreshMaterializedViewWithRetry(PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java:366) ~[starrocks-fe.jar:?]
	... 8 more
  1. query will be rewritten wrong if contains col in (upper('a'), lower('a');

What I'm doing:

    1. Unlock is not safe if batch locks fail, add try-catch to avoid this.
    1. Using Maps.newTreeMap() instead of CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER to avoid this.

Fixes #issue

What type of PR is this:

  • BugFix
  • Feature
  • Enhancement
  • Refactor
  • UT
  • Doc
  • Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

  • Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
  • No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

  • Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
  • Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
  • Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
  • Feature removed
  • Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

  • I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
  • This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
    • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
  • This is a backport pr

@LiShuMing @mergify
[BugFix] Fix Attempt to unlock lock, not locked by current locker in …
61975ca 
…mv refresh (#51884)

Signed-off-by: shuming.li <[email protected]>
(cherry picked from commit a1a3130)

# Conflicts:
#	fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/common/util/concurrent/lock/Locker.java
#	fe/fe-core/src/test/java/com/starrocks/planner/MaterializedViewTest.java
@mergify mergify bot added the conflicts label Nov 5, 2024
@mergify Mergify
Copy link
Contributor Author

mergify bot commented Nov 5, 2024

Cherry-pick of a1a3130 has failed:

On branch mergify/bp/branch-3.2/pr-51884
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/branch-3.2'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit a1a3130214.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	modified:   fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/sql/optimizer/rewrite/scalar/MvNormalizePredicateRule.java

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add/rm <file>..." as appropriate to mark resolution)
	deleted by us:   fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/common/util/concurrent/lock/Locker.java
	both modified:   fe/fe-core/src/test/java/com/starrocks/planner/MaterializedViewTest.java

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

@mergify mergify bot mentioned this pull request Nov 5, 2024
Merged
24 tasks
@mergify mergify bot closed this Nov 5, 2024
@mergify Mergify
Copy link
Contributor Author

mergify bot commented Nov 5, 2024

@mergify[bot]: Backport conflict, please reslove the conflict and resubmit the pr

@LiShuMing LiShuMing reopened this Nov 5, 2024
@wanpengfei-git wanpengfei-git enabled auto-merge (squash) November 5, 2024 12:13
@LiShuMing
fix bugs
101f5c0 
Signed-off-by: shuming.li <[email protected]>
@sonarcloud SonarCloud
Copy link

sonarcloud bot commented Nov 5, 2024

Quality Gate Passed Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

@wanpengfei-git wanpengfei-git merged commit 3aba087 into branch-3.2 Nov 5, 2024
28 checks passed
@wanpengfei-git wanpengfei-git deleted the mergify/bp/branch-3.2/pr-51884 branch November 5, 2024 12:50
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@LiShuMing LiShuMing LiShuMing approved these changes

Assignees

@LiShuMing LiShuMing

Labels
automerge conflicts version:3.2.13
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
2 participants
@LiShuMing @wanpengfei-git