You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@druid.apache.org by GitBox <gi...@apache.org> on 2022/11/20 13:35:02 UTC
[GitHub] [druid] AmatyaAvadhanula opened a new pull request, #13390: Fix shared lock acquisition criteria
AmatyaAvadhanula opened a new pull request, #13390:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/13390
<!-- Thanks for trying to help us make Apache Druid be the best it can be! Please fill out as much of the following information as is possible (where relevant, and remove it when irrelevant) to help make the intention and scope of this PR clear in order to ease review. -->
<!-- Please read the doc for contribution (https://github.com/apache/druid/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md) before making this PR. Also, once you open a PR, please _avoid using force pushes and rebasing_ since these make it difficult for reviewers to see what you've changed in response to their reviews. See [the 'If your pull request shows conflicts with master' section](https://github.com/apache/druid/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#if-your-pull-request-shows-conflicts-with-master) for more details. -->
<!-- Replace XXXX with the id of the issue fixed in this PR. Remove this section if there is no corresponding issue. Don't reference the issue in the title of this pull-request. -->
<!-- If you are a committer, follow the PR action item checklist for committers:
https://github.com/apache/druid/blob/master/dev/committer-instructions.md#pr-and-issue-action-item-checklist-for-committers. -->
### Description
<!-- Describe the goal of this PR, what problem are you fixing. If there is a corresponding issue (referenced above), it's not necessary to repeat the description here, however, you may choose to keep one summary sentence. -->
Shared locks are only acquired when all other locks are also shared locks.
<!-- Describe your patch: what did you change in code? How did you fix the problem? -->
However, it should be possible when all exclusive locks of the same or greater priority are revoked. If there are any exclusive locks of lower priority, it must be possible to revoke them and allocate a shared lock.
<!-- If there are several relatively logically separate changes in this PR, create a mini-section for each of them. For example: -->
<!--
In each section, please describe design decisions made, including:
- Choice of algorithms
- Behavioral aspects. What configuration values are acceptable? How are corner cases and error conditions handled, such as when there are insufficient resources?
- Class organization and design (how the logic is split between classes, inheritance, composition, design patterns)
- Method organization and design (how the logic is split between methods, parameters and return types)
- Naming (class, method, API, configuration, HTTP endpoint, names of emitted metrics)
-->
<!-- It's good to describe an alternative design (or mention an alternative name) for every design (or naming) decision point and compare the alternatives with the designs that you've implemented (or the names you've chosen) to highlight the advantages of the chosen designs and names. -->
<!-- If there was a discussion of the design of the feature implemented in this PR elsewhere (e. g. a "Proposal" issue, any other issue, or a thread in the development mailing list), link to that discussion from this PR description and explain what have changed in your final design compared to your original proposal or the consensus version in the end of the discussion. If something hasn't changed since the original discussion, you can omit a detailed discussion of those aspects of the design here, perhaps apart from brief mentioning for the sake of readability of this PR description. -->
<hr>
<hr>
<!-- Check the items by putting "x" in the brackets for the done things. Not all of these items apply to every PR. Remove the items which are not done or not relevant to the PR. None of the items from the checklist below are strictly necessary, but it would be very helpful if you at least self-review the PR. -->
This PR has:
- [x] been self-reviewed.
- [ ] added documentation for new or modified features or behaviors.
- [ ] a release note entry in the PR description.
- [ ] added Javadocs for most classes and all non-trivial methods. Linked related entities via Javadoc links.
- [ ] added or updated version, license, or notice information in [licenses.yaml](https://github.com/apache/druid/blob/master/dev/license.md)
- [ ] added comments explaining the "why" and the intent of the code wherever would not be obvious for an unfamiliar reader.
- [x] added unit tests or modified existing tests to cover new code paths, ensuring the threshold for [code coverage](https://github.com/apache/druid/blob/master/dev/code-review/code-coverage.md) is met.
- [ ] added integration tests.
- [ ] been tested in a test Druid cluster.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@druid.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@druid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-help@druid.apache.org
[GitHub] [druid] kfaraz merged pull request #13390: Fix shared lock acquisition criteria
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
kfaraz merged PR #13390:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/13390
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@druid.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@druid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-help@druid.apache.org
[GitHub] [druid] AmatyaAvadhanula commented on pull request #13390: Fix shared lock acquisition criteria
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
AmatyaAvadhanula commented on PR #13390:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/13390#issuecomment-1321403853
@kfaraz thank you for the review.
Yes, a cluster with a revoked compaction lock of priority 25, and a shared lock of priority 50 failed to allocate another shared lock of priority 50.
I believe the sequence of events was:
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@druid.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@druid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-help@druid.apache.org
[GitHub] [druid] kfaraz commented on a diff in pull request #13390: Fix shared lock acquisition criteria
Posted by GitBox <gi...@apache.org>.
kfaraz commented on code in PR #13390:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/13390#discussion_r1027337562
##########
indexing-service/src/main/java/org/apache/druid/indexing/overlord/TaskLockbox.java:
##########
@@ -474,8 +474,12 @@ private TaskLockPosse createOrFindLockPosse(LockRequest request)
if (reusablePosses.size() == 0) {
// case 1) this task doesn't have any lock, but others do
- if (request.getType().equals(TaskLockType.SHARED) && isAllSharedLocks(conflictPosses)) {
- // Any number of shared locks can be acquired for the same dataSource and interval.
+ if (request.getType().equals(TaskLockType.SHARED)
+ && areAllEqualOrHigherPriorityLocksSharedOrRevoked(conflictPosses, request.getPriority())) {
+ // Any number of shared locks can be acquired for the same dataSource and interval
+ // Non-shared locks of equal or greater priority, if present, must already be revoked
+ // Other exclusive (or any non-shared) locks of lower priority can be revoked
Review Comment:
Shared and exclusive locks are the only two types of locks.
So the phrase `exclusive (or any non-shared) locks` can cause confusion to readers.
If we add a new type of lock in the future, this can be updated.
##########
indexing-service/src/main/java/org/apache/druid/indexing/overlord/TaskLockbox.java:
##########
@@ -1070,10 +1074,33 @@ Map<String, NavigableMap<DateTime, SortedMap<Interval, List<TaskLockPosse>>>> ge
return running;
}
- private static boolean isAllSharedLocks(List<TaskLockPosse> lockPosses)
+ /**
+ * Check if all lockPosses are either shared
+ * OR of lower priority
+ * OR are revoked non-shared locks if their priorities are greater than or equal to the provided priority
+ * @param lockPosses conflicting task lock posses to be checked
+ * @param priority priority of the lock to be acquired
+ * @return true if the condititons are met
+ */
+ private static boolean areAllEqualOrHigherPriorityLocksSharedOrRevoked(List<TaskLockPosse> lockPosses, int priority)
{
return lockPosses.stream()
- .allMatch(taskLockPosse -> taskLockPosse.getTaskLock().getType().equals(TaskLockType.SHARED));
+ .filter(taskLockPosse -> taskLockPosse.getTaskLock().getPriority() >= priority)
Review Comment:
Better use the non-null priority as done in `isRevocable`.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@druid.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commits-unsubscribe@druid.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commits-help@druid.apache.org