You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@zookeeper.apache.org by "Flavio Paiva Junqueira (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org> on 2008/06/30 13:49:45 UTC
[jira] Commented: (ZOOKEEPER-59) Synchronized block in
NIOServerCnxn
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-59?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12609206#action_12609206 ]
Flavio Paiva Junqueira commented on ZOOKEEPER-59:
-------------------------------------------------
The following block might also have the wrong guard:
{noformat}
NIOServerCnxn.doIO@379
synchronized (this) {
if (outgoingBuffers.size() == 0) {
if (!initialized
&& (sk.interestOps() & SelectionKey.OP_READ) == 0) {
throw new IOException("Responded to info probe");
}
sk.interestOps(sk.interestOps()
& (~SelectionKey.OP_WRITE));
} else {
sk.interestOps(sk.interestOps()
| SelectionKey.OP_WRITE);
}
}
{noformat}
> 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
>
> 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.