You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@ignite.apache.org by Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com> on 2016/04/08 11:58:14 UTC
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Yakov,
sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR,
can you please do the review again?
Thanks!
Vladisav
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again?
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Vlad, can you please check my comments again?
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > Hi Yakov,
>> >
>> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
>> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed.
>> >
>> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
>> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
>> > release).
>> >
>> > Best regrads,
>> > Vladisav
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@gridgain.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks!
>> > > --
>> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
>> > > *GridGain Systems*
>> > > www.gridgain.com
>> > >
>> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>> > >
>> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>> > > >
>> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>> > > >
>> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding
>> optimized-classnames.properties.
>> > > > Can you please respond in ticket?
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --Yakov
>> > > >
>> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning
>> ticket
>> > to
>> > > >> myself.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> --Yakov
>> > > >>
>> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>> vladisavj@gmail.com>:
>> > > >>
>> > > >>> Hi,
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the
>> next
>> > > >>> release.
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> Best regards,
>> > > >>> Vladisav
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> > > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>> > Folks,
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has
>> the
>> > > same
>> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot be
>> > > changed
>> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock is
>> > > held.
>> > > >>> The
>> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock()
>> issue
>> > > >>> can be
>> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
>> > > currently
>> > > >>> > works.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name"
>> message,
>> > my
>> > > >>> first
>> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups
>> which
>> > led
>> > > >>> to
>> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you please
>> > > >>> re-test
>> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
>> > > structures?
>> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue when
>> > I'm
>> > > >>> done
>> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>> > > >>> >
>> > > >>>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Vlad and All!
I have reviewed and merged ignite-642 (
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-642 Implement
IgniteReentrantLock data structure) to master. I will send separate email
to user- and dev-list on this.
--Yakov
2016-04-27 13:07 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> Vlad, not yet, unfortunately. I will try to do today.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-04-27 11:40 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Yakov,
>>
>> did you had time to do another review round of ignite-642?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com
>> >
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Yakov,
>> >
>> > I've finished the initialization tests for ignite-642 (and moved
>> > serialization test from GridCacheLockAbstractTest to
>> > IgniteLockAbstractSelfTest).
>> > Please check the commit and let me know if you spot anything else.
>> > Thanks!
>> >
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>> vladisavj@gmail.com
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yakov,
>> >>
>> >> I reviewed the changes in ignite-642 and it looks good to me, but I
>> have
>> >> one question.
>> >> Can you please look at my comment in ignite-642 ticket?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks!
>> >> Vladisav
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>> vladisavj@gmail.com
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Sure, I'll look into it later today, or tomorrow at the latest
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and
>> provide
>> >>>> comments?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --Yakov
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> > Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> > changes.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > --Yakov
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <
>> >>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>:
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >> Guys,
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >> Couple of questions:
>> >>>> >> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown
>> (e.g. if
>> >>>> >> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw
>> >>>> OOME in
>> >>>> >> any case.
>> >>>> >> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
>> >>>> >> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked
>> >>>> around
>> >>>> >> in
>> >>>> >> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
>> >>>> >> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >>
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> >
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Vlad, not yet, unfortunately. I will try to do today.
--Yakov
2016-04-27 11:40 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> Yakov,
>
> did you had time to do another review round of ignite-642?
>
> Thanks!
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Yakov,
> >
> > I've finished the initialization tests for ignite-642 (and moved
> > serialization test from GridCacheLockAbstractTest to
> > IgniteLockAbstractSelfTest).
> > Please check the commit and let me know if you spot anything else.
> > Thanks!
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <
> vladisavj@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> Yakov,
> >>
> >> I reviewed the changes in ignite-642 and it looks good to me, but I have
> >> one question.
> >> Can you please look at my comment in ignite-642 ticket?
> >>
> >> Thanks!
> >> Vladisav
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <
> vladisavj@gmail.com
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Sure, I'll look into it later today, or tomorrow at the latest
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
> >>>>
> >>>> Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and
> provide
> >>>> comments?
> >>>>
> >>>> --Yakov
> >>>>
> >>>> 2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> >>>>
> >>>> > Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize
> >>>> the
> >>>> > changes.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > --Yakov
> >>>> >
> >>>> > 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <
> >>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>:
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> Guys,
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> Couple of questions:
> >>>> >> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g.
> if
> >>>> >> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw
> >>>> OOME in
> >>>> >> any case.
> >>>> >> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
> >>>> >> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked
> >>>> around
> >>>> >> in
> >>>> >> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
> >>>> >> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>.
Yakov,
did you had time to do another review round of ignite-642?
Thanks!
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yakov,
>
> I've finished the initialization tests for ignite-642 (and moved
> serialization test from GridCacheLockAbstractTest to
> IgniteLockAbstractSelfTest).
> Please check the commit and let me know if you spot anything else.
> Thanks!
>
> On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Yakov,
>>
>> I reviewed the changes in ignite-642 and it looks good to me, but I have
>> one question.
>> Can you please look at my comment in ignite-642 ticket?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Vladisav
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Sure, I'll look into it later today, or tomorrow at the latest
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
>>>>
>>>> Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and provide
>>>> comments?
>>>>
>>>> --Yakov
>>>>
>>>> 2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>>>
>>>> > Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize
>>>> the
>>>> > changes.
>>>> >
>>>> > --Yakov
>>>> >
>>>> > 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <
>>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>:
>>>> >
>>>> >> Guys,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Couple of questions:
>>>> >> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
>>>> >> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw
>>>> OOME in
>>>> >> any case.
>>>> >> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
>>>> >> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked
>>>> around
>>>> >> in
>>>> >> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
>>>> >> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>.
Yakov,
I've finished the initialization tests for ignite-642 (and moved
serialization test from GridCacheLockAbstractTest to
IgniteLockAbstractSelfTest).
Please check the commit and let me know if you spot anything else.
Thanks!
On Fri, Apr 15, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Yakov,
>
> I reviewed the changes in ignite-642 and it looks good to me, but I have
> one question.
> Can you please look at my comment in ignite-642 ticket?
>
> Thanks!
> Vladisav
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sure, I'll look into it later today, or tomorrow at the latest
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
>>>
>>> Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and provide
>>> comments?
>>>
>>> --Yakov
>>>
>>> 2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>> > Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize the
>>> > changes.
>>> >
>>> > --Yakov
>>> >
>>> > 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com>:
>>> >
>>> >> Guys,
>>> >>
>>> >> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
>>> >>
>>> >> Couple of questions:
>>> >> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
>>> >> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw OOME
>>> in
>>> >> any case.
>>> >> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
>>> >> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked
>>> around
>>> >> in
>>> >> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
>>> >> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>.
Yakov,
I reviewed the changes in ignite-642 and it looks good to me, but I have
one question.
Can you please look at my comment in ignite-642 ticket?
Thanks!
Vladisav
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sure, I'll look into it later today, or tomorrow at the latest
>
> On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
>>
>> Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and provide
>> comments?
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>
>> > Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize the
>> > changes.
>> >
>> > --Yakov
>> >
>> > 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
>> >:
>> >
>> >> Guys,
>> >>
>> >> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
>> >>
>> >> Couple of questions:
>> >> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
>> >> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw OOME
>> in
>> >> any case.
>> >> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
>> >> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked
>> around
>> >> in
>> >> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
>> >> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>.
Sure, I'll look into it later today, or tomorrow at the latest
On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org> wrote:
> Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
>
> Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and provide
> comments?
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>
> > Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize the
> > changes.
> >
> > --Yakov
> >
> > 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com
> >:
> >
> >> Guys,
> >>
> >> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
> >>
> >> Couple of questions:
> >> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
> >> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw OOME in
> >> any case.
> >> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
> >> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked around
> >> in
> >> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
> >> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Vlad, please see my changes in ignite-642 and comment in the ticket.
Alex, can you please take a look at my latest commit as well and provide
comments?
--Yakov
2016-04-12 23:47 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize the
> changes.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Guys,
>>
>> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
>>
>> Couple of questions:
>> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
>> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw OOME in
>> any case.
>> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
>> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked around
>> in
>> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
>> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Very good points, Alexey. I will look at this tomorrow and finalize the
changes.
--Yakov
2016-04-12 23:41 GMT+03:00 Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>:
> Guys,
>
> I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
>
> Couple of questions:
> - I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
> interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw OOME in
> any case.
> - readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
> readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked around in
> the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
> GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Alexey Goncharuk <al...@gmail.com>.
Guys,
I fixed code style a bit and pushed my changes to the branch.
Couple of questions:
- I see that some of the Errors caught do not get re-thrown (e.g. if
interruptAll flag is set). I believe we should at least re-throw OOME in
any case.
- readResolve method is missing for CacheLockImpl. The current
readExternal/writeExternal code uses static stash field. I looked around in
the code and found that IgniteKernal uses localIgnite, while
GridCacheAdapter uses stash. Which way is the correct one?
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Vlad, I reviewed the code and committed it to ignite-642 branch (after some
minor style changes + I added new tests to suites).
Alex G & Sam can you please review (see diff with our current master) and
provide comments here. I think we are very close to finish with this issue.
Thanks for contributing this!
--Yakov
2016-04-11 18:22 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> Vlad, I did not have time today. Will review tomorrow.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-04-08 13:51 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>
>> Very good news, Vlad! I will take a look over weekend or on Monday.
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>> 2016-04-08 12:58 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Yakov,
>>>
>>> sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR,
>>> can you please do the review again?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Vladisav
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>>> vladisavj@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> Vlad, can you please check my comments again?
>>> >>
>>> >> --Yakov
>>> >>
>>> >> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Hi Yakov,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
>>> >> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is
>>> needed.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
>>> >> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
>>> >> > release).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Best regrads,
>>> >> > Vladisav
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <
>>> yzhdanov@gridgain.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > Thanks!
>>> >> > > --
>>> >> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
>>> >> > > *GridGain Systems*
>>> >> > > www.gridgain.com
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>> >> > >
>>> >> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding
>>> >> optimized-classnames.properties.
>>> >> > > > Can you please respond in ticket?
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > --Yakov
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning
>>> >> ticket
>>> >> > to
>>> >> > > >> myself.
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >> --Yakov
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>>> >> vladisavj@gmail.com>:
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >>> Hi,
>>> >> > > >>>
>>> >> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>>> >> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the
>>> >> next
>>> >> > > >>> release.
>>> >> > > >>>
>>> >> > > >>> Best regards,
>>> >> > > >>> Vladisav
>>> >> > > >>>
>>> >> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>>> >> > > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > > >>>
>>> >> > > >>> > Folks,
>>> >> > > >>> >
>>> >> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock()
>>> has
>>> >> the
>>> >> > > same
>>> >> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology
>>> cannot be
>>> >> > > changed
>>> >> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit
>>> lock is
>>> >> > > held.
>>> >> > > >>> The
>>> >> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the
>>> lock()
>>> >> issue
>>> >> > > >>> can be
>>> >> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way
>>> IgniteSemaphore
>>> >> > > currently
>>> >> > > >>> > works.
>>> >> > > >>> >
>>> >> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name"
>>> >> message,
>>> >> > my
>>> >> > > >>> first
>>> >> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups
>>> >> which
>>> >> > led
>>> >> > > >>> to
>>> >> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you
>>> please
>>> >> > > >>> re-test
>>> >> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
>>> >> > > structures?
>>> >> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue
>>> when
>>> >> > I'm
>>> >> > > >>> done
>>> >> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>>> >> > > >>> >
>>> >> > > >>>
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >>
>>> >> > > >
>>> >> > >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Vlad, I did not have time today. Will review tomorrow.
--Yakov
2016-04-08 13:51 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> Very good news, Vlad! I will take a look over weekend or on Monday.
>
> --Yakov
>
> 2016-04-08 12:58 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Yakov,
>>
>> sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR,
>> can you please do the review again?
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Vladisav
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>> vladisavj@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again?
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> Vlad, can you please check my comments again?
>> >>
>> >> --Yakov
>> >>
>> >> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
>> >>
>> >> > Hi Yakov,
>> >> >
>> >> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
>> >> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is
>> needed.
>> >> >
>> >> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
>> >> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
>> >> > release).
>> >> >
>> >> > Best regrads,
>> >> > Vladisav
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <
>> yzhdanov@gridgain.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks!
>> >> > > --
>> >> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
>> >> > > *GridGain Systems*
>> >> > > www.gridgain.com
>> >> > >
>> >> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding
>> >> optimized-classnames.properties.
>> >> > > > Can you please respond in ticket?
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --Yakov
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning
>> >> ticket
>> >> > to
>> >> > > >> myself.
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> --Yakov
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <
>> >> vladisavj@gmail.com>:
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>> Hi,
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
>> >> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the
>> >> next
>> >> > > >>> release.
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> Best regards,
>> >> > > >>> Vladisav
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
>> >> > > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>> > Folks,
>> >> > > >>> >
>> >> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock()
>> has
>> >> the
>> >> > > same
>> >> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot
>> be
>> >> > > changed
>> >> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit
>> lock is
>> >> > > held.
>> >> > > >>> The
>> >> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock()
>> >> issue
>> >> > > >>> can be
>> >> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
>> >> > > currently
>> >> > > >>> > works.
>> >> > > >>> >
>> >> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name"
>> >> message,
>> >> > my
>> >> > > >>> first
>> >> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups
>> >> which
>> >> > led
>> >> > > >>> to
>> >> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you
>> please
>> >> > > >>> re-test
>> >> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
>> >> > > structures?
>> >> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue
>> when
>> >> > I'm
>> >> > > >>> done
>> >> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
>> >> > > >>> >
>> >> > > >>>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >>
>> >> > > >
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
Re: Semaphore blocking on tryAcquire() while holding a cache-lock
Posted by Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>.
Very good news, Vlad! I will take a look over weekend or on Monday.
--Yakov
2016-04-08 12:58 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> Yakov,
>
> sorry for the long delay, I added another commit to the PR,
> can you please do the review again?
>
> Thanks!
> Vladisav
>
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Vladisav Jelisavcic <vladisavj@gmail.com
> >
> wrote:
>
> > Yakov, I've seen your comments, can you please check the jira again?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Vlad, can you please check my comments again?
> >>
> >> --Yakov
> >>
> >> 2016-03-18 17:57 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <vl...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >> > Hi Yakov,
> >> >
> >> > yes, thanks for the comments, I think everything should be ok now,
> >> > please review the PR and tell me if you think anything else is needed.
> >> >
> >> > Once ignite-642 is merged into master,
> >> > I'll submit a PR for IgniteReadWriteLock (hopefully on time for 1.6.
> >> > release).
> >> >
> >> > Best regrads,
> >> > Vladisav
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 18, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Yakov Zhdanov <
> yzhdanov@gridgain.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Vlad, did you have a chance to review my latest comments?
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks!
> >> > > --
> >> > > Yakov Zhdanov, Director R&D
> >> > > *GridGain Systems*
> >> > > www.gridgain.com
> >> > >
> >> > > 2016-03-06 12:21 GMT+03:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Vlad and all (esp Val and Anton V.),
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I reviewed the PR. My comments are in the ticket.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Anton V. there is a question regarding
> >> optimized-classnames.properties.
> >> > > > Can you please respond in ticket?
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > --Yakov
> >> > > >
> >> > > > 2016-02-29 16:00 GMT+06:00 Yakov Zhdanov <yz...@apache.org>:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >> Vlad, that's great! I will take a look this week. Reassigning
> >> ticket
> >> > to
> >> > > >> myself.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> --Yakov
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> 2016-02-26 18:37 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic <
> >> vladisavj@gmail.com>:
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>> Hi,
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> i recently implemented distributed ReentrantLock - IGNITE-642,
> >> > > >>> i made a pull request, so hopefully this could be added to the
> >> next
> >> > > >>> release.
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> Best regards,
> >> > > >>> Vladisav
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 10:49 AM, Alexey Goncharuk <
> >> > > >>> alexey.goncharuk@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>> > Folks,
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>> > The current implementation of IgniteCache.lock(key).lock() has
> >> the
> >> > > same
> >> > > >>> > semantics as the transactional locks - cache topology cannot
> be
> >> > > changed
> >> > > >>> > while there exists an ongoing transaction or an explicit lock
> is
> >> > > held.
> >> > > >>> The
> >> > > >>> > restriction for transactions is quite fundamental, the lock()
> >> issue
> >> > > >>> can be
> >> > > >>> > fixed if we re-implement locking the same way IgniteSemaphore
> >> > > currently
> >> > > >>> > works.
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>> > As for the "Failed to find semaphore with the given name"
> >> message,
> >> > my
> >> > > >>> first
> >> > > >>> > guess is that DataStructures were configured with 1 backups
> >> which
> >> > led
> >> > > >>> to
> >> > > >>> > the data loss when two nodes were stopped. Mario, can you
> please
> >> > > >>> re-test
> >> > > >>> > your semaphore scenario with 2 backups configured for data
> >> > > structures?
> >> > > >>> > From my side, I can also take a look at the semaphore issue
> when
> >> > I'm
> >> > > >>> done
> >> > > >>> > with IGNITE-2610.
> >> > > >>> >
> >> > > >>>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>