Tarantool development patches archive
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>,
	Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>,
	gorcunov@gmail.com, tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v3] wal: introduce limits on simultaneous writes
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2021 13:19:27 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <07f4831b-2300-2bb0-28a3-9d49f197e951@tarantool.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54666e16-f577-c9f5-e917-f834b7e4b8d5@tarantool.org>

16.03.2021 02:42, Vladislav Shpilevoy пишет:
> Hi! Thanks for the patch!

Thanks for your answer!

> I must admit, it looks kind of ugly :D. The class we have now only remotely
> looks like a semaphore.
> Number of reasons, some of which you already listed in the header file:
> - It is advisory. Can be bypassed easily if you forget to check wouldblock.
>    But not a big issue really. An optional thing like 'try_take' is needed
>    for box.commit({is_async = true}) anyway, not to block the fiber;
> - You can take more amount of the resource than there is. Bearable as well,
>    but still;
> - sem_release() does not wakeup anybody. Quite counter-intuitive;
> - The wouldblock check not only checks the resource being available, but also
>    if there are any waiters. It wouldn't matter for a real semaphore, because
>    it has nothing to do with ordering the waiters in FIFO. It is a detail of
>    the journal which slipped into the general class.
>    But maybe that is the only way to make it fair? Otherwise some fibers
>    could be blocked forever due to starvation.
> The last thing I am not sure is even an issue. Might be a feature.
> The others probably can be fixed if we would rework journal_queue API. For
> instance, not have journal_queue_wait() separated from journal_queue_on_append().
> Then sem_take() could become blocking and obligatory.
> You simply inline everything into journal_write() and journal_write_try_async(),
> and you will see that you can always call take() and block inside of it.
> But I don't know if it is worth doing TBH. It is used in a single place so far.
> This is hard to define fiber_sem API which would be suitable for future usages.
> I would vote for not doing it now and see if we would need the semaphore in the
> future.
> Although the idea about removing journal_queue_wait() might be worth trying.
> It is used either right before journal_queue_on_append(), or in
> journal_queue_flush() which is also right before journal_queue_on_append().
> Up to you. Anyway we need to return to this code for box.commit({is_async})
> feature, which means the hard polishing might be not so useful.

Let's drop the semaphore thing then. I removed the commit introducing it and
pushed the patch on a new branch: sp/gh-5536-replica-oom-no-sem

Serge Petrenko

  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-03-16 10:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-02-24 19:35 Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-02-24 19:40 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-02-25 13:05 ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches
2021-02-26  0:57   ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-02-26  7:18     ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches
2021-02-26 20:23       ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-02-26 21:20         ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches
2021-02-26 22:44           ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-02-27 13:27             ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-01 19:15   ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-01 21:46     ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches
2021-02-26  0:56 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-01 19:08   ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-01 22:05     ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-02 17:51       ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-03 20:59         ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-09 15:10           ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-09 19:49 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-10  8:18   ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-12 17:10     ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-13 19:14       ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-15 23:42       ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-16  6:45         ` Konstantin Osipov via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-16 20:27           ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-16 10:19         ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches [this message]
2021-03-16 20:48           ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-17 12:14             ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-17 21:02           ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-19 11:32             ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2021-03-19 15:36 ` Kirill Yukhin via Tarantool-patches

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=07f4831b-2300-2bb0-28a3-9d49f197e951@tarantool.org \
    --to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
    --cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
    --cc=kostja.osipov@gmail.com \
    --cc=sergepetrenko@tarantool.org \
    --cc=v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org \
    --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v3] wal: introduce limits on simultaneous writes' \


* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox