You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@ignite.apache.org by Kamlesh Joshi <Ka...@ril.com> on 2021/01/21 06:29:04 UTC

removeAll operation on same cache causing deadlock

Hi Igniters,

Recently, we upgraded our lower environment to Ignite 2.9.1 from 2.7.0 . Earlier, we faced one issue of cluster going into hang state, if there are multiple threads performing removeAll() operation on same cache.
Its mentioned in the release notes that "Fixed deadlock on concurrent removeAll() on the same cache" this has been fixed. However, we were still able to reproduce the issue in this version as well. Can anyone please validate this?

Thanks and Regards,
Kamlesh Joshi

"Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). 
are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient. you are hereby notified that any 
review. re-transmission. conversion to hard copy. copying. circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is 
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient. please notify the sender immediately by return email. 
and delete this message and any attachments from your system.

Virus Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email. 
The company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."

RE: [External]Re: removeAll operation on same cache causing deadlock

Posted by Kamlesh Joshi <Ka...@ril.com>.
Ohh! Anyways thanks for the update !

Regards,
Kamlesh Joshi

From: Alex Plehanov <pl...@gmail.com>
Sent: 21 January 2021 13:20
To: user@ignite.apache.org
Subject: [External]Re: removeAll operation on same cache causing deadlock


The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.
Hello,

Unfortunately, for atomic caches in 2.9.1 there still java level deadlock possible (Ignite system threads can hang) for mass operations (putAll, removeAll, invokeAll) if an unordered key set is used. See [1]. This issue will be fixed in 2.10 release.

[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12451

чт, 21 янв. 2021 г. в 09:30, Kamlesh Joshi <Ka...@ril.com>>:
Hi Igniters,

Recently, we upgraded our lower environment to Ignite 2.9.1 from 2.7.0 . Earlier, we faced one issue of cluster going into hang state, if there are multiple threads performing removeAll() operation on same cache.
Its mentioned in the release notes that “Fixed deadlock on concurrent removeAll() on the same cache” this has been fixed. However, we were still able to reproduce the issue in this version as well. Can anyone please validate this?

Thanks and Regards,
Kamlesh Joshi


"Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, re-transmission, conversion to hard copy, copying, circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return email and delete this message and any attachments from your system.

Virus Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email. The company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."
"Confidentiality Warning: This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the intended recipient(s). 
are confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient. you are hereby notified that any 
review. re-transmission. conversion to hard copy. copying. circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is 
strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient. please notify the sender immediately by return email. 
and delete this message and any attachments from your system.

Virus Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email. 
The company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachment."

Re: removeAll operation on same cache causing deadlock

Posted by Alex Plehanov <pl...@gmail.com>.
Hello,

Unfortunately, for atomic caches in 2.9.1 there still java level deadlock
possible (Ignite system threads can hang) for mass operations (putAll,
removeAll, invokeAll) if an unordered key set is used. See [1]. This issue
will be fixed in 2.10 release.

[1]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12451

чт, 21 янв. 2021 г. в 09:30, Kamlesh Joshi <Ka...@ril.com>:

> Hi Igniters,
>
>
>
> Recently, we upgraded our lower environment to Ignite 2.9.1 from 2.7.0 .
> Earlier, we faced one issue of cluster going into hang state, if there are
> multiple threads performing *removeAll*() operation on same cache.
>
> Its mentioned in the release notes that “*Fixed deadlock on concurrent
> removeAll() on the same cache*” this has been fixed. However, we were
> still able to reproduce the issue in this version as well. Can anyone
> please validate this?
>
>
>
> *Thanks and Regards,*
>
> *Kamlesh Joshi*
>
>
>
>
> "*Confidentiality Warning*: This message and any attachments are intended
> only for the use of the intended recipient(s), are confidential and may be
> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any review, re-transmission, conversion to hard copy, copying,
> circulation or other use of this message and any attachments is strictly
> prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender
> immediately by return email and delete this message and any attachments
> from your system.
>
> *Virus Warning:* Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to
> ensure no viruses are present in this email. The company cannot accept
> responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or
> attachment."
>