-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 283
Fix ByteBuf memory leak in PutOperation when operations are aborted #3176
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
j-tyler
wants to merge
3
commits into
linkedin:master
Choose a base branch
from
j-tyler:j-tyler/put-operation-leak-on-abort
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and old review comments may become outdated.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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
we still need this function to be synchronized here, it's here to protect race condition.
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.
Lets walk through to see if that's the case.
fillFromis called in only one place, fromfillChunkswhich itself is only called fromChunkFillerinPutManager. ChunkFiller is a runnable run by a single thread:So fillChunks since it's only accessed by a single thread would only needs to be synchronized from concurrent access from error / cleanup threads. What is needed is that any objects used within the fillChunks routine which may also be concurrently accessed by those threads to be either behind a more narrowly scoped lock or declared as volatile. So lets look at that.
In PutManager.poll we have:
So
setOperationExceptionAndCompletemay be set with a RouterException.isOperationCompleteis true, thenonCompletemay be called which callscleanupChunksTherefore we need to
a) make sure anything that happens within
setOperationExceptionAndCompleteis not concurrent with anything that happens infillChunks.b) make sure that either i) nothing concurrent happens in fillChunks after isOperationComplete is true or ii) make sure what does happen is behind a lock.
In PutManager.completePendingOperations we have:
and
completePendingOperationsonly runs as cleanup within the Chunkfiller thread, proving that it cannot be concurrent with fillChunksSo lets look at condition a:
So for condition A we set the exception, set operation completed, and clear chunks which are provably finished. None of this will involve concurrent modification with fillChunks.
Lets looks at condition b:
For condition b we can either add synchronized to fillChunks (instead of fillFrom) or we can add a lock around updating the operationCompleted value (and when we need to avoid TOCTOU). The synchronized on fillChunks should cause the least amount of complexity without too large an of an overhead as most of the work in fillChunks happens within an internal loop depending on the operationCompleted value.