-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 242
Fix global lock contention in DistClusterControllerStateModel caused by Optional.empty() singleton
#3052
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.
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
Open
LZD-PratyushBhatt
wants to merge
3
commits into
apache:master
Choose a base branch
from
LZD-PratyushBhatt:fix_global_lock_contention
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Fix global lock contention in DistClusterControllerStateModel caused by Optional.empty() singleton
#3052
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If Optional.empty() is the root cause of locking problem, why not just make the function synchronized without creating new lock object?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Appreciate the suggestion @junkaixue, that’s a fair point. I agree that synchronized at method level on this would technically provide mutual exclusion in this case.
I opted for a dedicated lock object (_controllerLock) to keep the synchronization scope narrowly focused on controller lifecycle transitions, and also I didnt want to change the already implemented dedicated lock logic. This makes the locking intent more explicit and avoids potential contention if other unrelated synchronized methods are ever added to this class (either now or later, or lets say by mistake).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let me know what you think, if we are sure this class will be small in size in future and not much complex, then yeah synchronized methods make more sense then.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@junkaixue : a new lock based implementation is close to the existing implementation while fixing the problem on the lock contention issue found as mentioned in the issue (due to JDK implementation of Optional.empty as singleton).
imho, making the methods synchronized may be of larger scope as we need to relook at the thread safety of other instance variables in current class and its base classes. So, if you suggest to fix this, should this be addressed in a different issue and PR.