[jira] Updated: (ZOOKEEPER-59) Synchronized block in NIOServerCnxn

["Patrick Hunt (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-59?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Patrick Hunt updated ZOOKEEPER-59:
----------------------------------

    Fix Version/s:     (was: 3.2.0)
                   3.3.0
     Release Note: not a blocker for 3.2, moving to 3.3

> Synchronized block in NIOServerCnxn
> -----------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ZOOKEEPER-59
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-59
>             Project: Zookeeper
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: server
>            Reporter: Flavio Paiva Junqueira
>            Assignee: Flavio Paiva Junqueira
>             Fix For: 3.3.0
>
>         Attachments: ZOOKEEPER-59.patch
>
>
> There are two synchronized blocks locking on different objects, and to me they should be guarded by the same object. Here are the parts of the code I'm talking about:
> {noformat}
> NIOServerCnxn.readRequest@444
> ...
>           synchronized (this) {
>                 outstandingRequests++;
>                 // check throttling
>                 if (zk.getInProcess() > factory.outstandingLimit) {
>                     disableRecv();
>                     // following lines should not be needed since we are already
>                     // reading
>                     // } else {
>                     // enableRecv();
>                 }
>             } 
> {noformat}
> {noformat}
> NIOServerCnxn.sendResponse@740
> ...
>          synchronized (this.factory) {
>                 outstandingRequests--;
>                 // check throttling
>                 if (zk.getInProcess() < factory.outstandingLimit
>                         || outstandingRequests < 1) {
>                     sk.selector().wakeup();
>                     enableRecv();
>                 }
>             }
> {noformat}
> I think the second one is correct, and the first synchronized block should be guarded by "this.factory". 
> This could be related to issue ZOOKEEPER-57, but I have no concrete indication that this is the case so far.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.