You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@druid.apache.org by "AmatyaAvadhanula (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org> on 2023/05/10 17:21:33 UTC
[GitHub] [druid] AmatyaAvadhanula opened a new pull request, #14246: Remove incorrect optimization
AmatyaAvadhanula opened a new pull request, #14246:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/14246
<!-- 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. -->
Fixes computation of conflicting locks when overlapping (shared) locks are present
<!-- 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. -->
The computation of conflicting locks had an optimization which relied on the principle that two locks could not overlap.
This is incorrect when shared locks are used, and this PR aims to correct it.
<!-- Describe your patch: what did you change in code? How did you fix the problem? -->
The fix is to simply remove the optimization as there is no easy way to find overlapping intervals without iterating the set of all intervals, when overlapping is possible.
<!-- 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. -->
<!-- Some of the aspects mentioned above may be omitted for simple and small changes. -->
<!-- Give your best effort to summarize your changes in a couple of sentences aimed toward Druid users.
If your change doesn't have end user impact, you can skip this section.
For tips about how to write a good release note, see [Release notes](https://github.com/apache/druid/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#release-notes).
-->
<hr>
##### Key changed/added classes in this PR
* `TaskLockbox`
<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] cheddar merged pull request #14246: Find conflicting locks when there are overlapping intervals
Posted by "cheddar (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
cheddar merged PR #14246:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/14246
--
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] imply-cheddar commented on a diff in pull request #14246: Find conflicting locks when there are overlapping intervals
Posted by "imply-cheddar (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
imply-cheddar commented on code in PR #14246:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/14246#discussion_r1190505154
##########
indexing-service/src/test/java/org/apache/druid/indexing/overlord/TaskLockboxTest.java:
##########
@@ -1357,6 +1357,52 @@ public void testFailedToReacquireTaskLock() throws Exception
result.getTasksToFail());
}
+ @Test
+ public void testConflictsWithOverlappingSharedLocks() throws Exception
+ {
+ final List<Task> tasks = new ArrayList<>();
+
+ final Task conflictingTask = NoopTask.create(10);
+ tasks.add(conflictingTask);
+ lockbox.add(conflictingTask);
+ taskStorage.insert(conflictingTask, TaskStatus.running(conflictingTask.getId()));
+ TaskLock conflictingLock = tryTimeChunkLock(
+ TaskLockType.SHARED,
+ conflictingTask,
+ Intervals.of("2023-05-01/2023-06-01")
+ ).getTaskLock();
+ Assert.assertNotNull(conflictingLock);
+ Assert.assertFalse(conflictingLock.isRevoked());
+
+ final Task floorTask = NoopTask.create(10);
+ tasks.add(floorTask);
+ lockbox.add(floorTask);
+ taskStorage.insert(floorTask, TaskStatus.running(floorTask.getId()));
+ TaskLock floorLock = tryTimeChunkLock(
+ TaskLockType.SHARED,
+ floorTask,
+ Intervals.of("2023-05-26/2023-05-27")
+ ).getTaskLock();
+ Assert.assertNotNull(floorLock);
+ Assert.assertFalse(floorLock.isRevoked());
Review Comment:
Why should this return the lock? I'm fairly certain that, while you *can* get tasks to request the locks that are being requested in this test, you have to actively do weird things to make that happen. The normal way that tasks will ask for locks would align the intervals of the locks with things that already exist. That is, I'm like 90% certain that this part of the test is exercising behavior that we don't expect nor want to happen in the wild.
I could be wrong though, so if you believe that this is a sequence of locks requests that can and should be able to happen, can you describe the set of tasks and data flow that are expected to be able to get these lock requests to occur?
--
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 a diff in pull request #14246: Find conflicting locks when there are overlapping intervals
Posted by "AmatyaAvadhanula (via GitHub)" <gi...@apache.org>.
AmatyaAvadhanula commented on code in PR #14246:
URL: https://github.com/apache/druid/pull/14246#discussion_r1190581388
##########
indexing-service/src/test/java/org/apache/druid/indexing/overlord/TaskLockboxTest.java:
##########
@@ -1357,6 +1357,52 @@ public void testFailedToReacquireTaskLock() throws Exception
result.getTasksToFail());
}
+ @Test
+ public void testConflictsWithOverlappingSharedLocks() throws Exception
+ {
+ final List<Task> tasks = new ArrayList<>();
+
+ final Task conflictingTask = NoopTask.create(10);
+ tasks.add(conflictingTask);
+ lockbox.add(conflictingTask);
+ taskStorage.insert(conflictingTask, TaskStatus.running(conflictingTask.getId()));
+ TaskLock conflictingLock = tryTimeChunkLock(
+ TaskLockType.SHARED,
+ conflictingTask,
+ Intervals.of("2023-05-01/2023-06-01")
+ ).getTaskLock();
+ Assert.assertNotNull(conflictingLock);
+ Assert.assertFalse(conflictingLock.isRevoked());
+
+ final Task floorTask = NoopTask.create(10);
+ tasks.add(floorTask);
+ lockbox.add(floorTask);
+ taskStorage.insert(floorTask, TaskStatus.running(floorTask.getId()));
+ TaskLock floorLock = tryTimeChunkLock(
+ TaskLockType.SHARED,
+ floorTask,
+ Intervals.of("2023-05-26/2023-05-27")
+ ).getTaskLock();
+ Assert.assertNotNull(floorLock);
+ Assert.assertFalse(floorLock.isRevoked());
Review Comment:
1. An appending task requests for a SHARED lock over May, 2023 (The interval is explicitly specified)
2. An appending task asks for DAY granularity SHARED locks for a few dates for the same month, the latest of which is from 26th to 27th. (The interval is not explicitly specified, and the task allocates locks with day-granular intervals)
3. A new replacing task with DAY segment granularity requests a lock from 28th, May to 3rd June in 2023. This lock should not be granted, but it is in the current code. (The interval is explicitly specified to be the above week)
I agree that this is very unlikely, but it is possible when one tries to specify the ingestion interval instead of letting the task determine it. It's also possible when WEEK granular segments are being ingested
--
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