Tarantool development patches archive
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>,
	tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 11/11] box/journal: redesign journal operations
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 16:33:02 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200320133302.GG8326@uranus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200320130905.GA29536@atlas>

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 04:09:05PM +0300, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> [20/03/20 14:15]:
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 01:58:42PM +0300, Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> > > * Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> [20/03/20 13:34]:
> > > > > >  
> > > > > > -	if (txn_write_to_wal(req) != 0)
> > > > > > +	fiber_set_txn(fiber(), NULL);
> > > > > > +	if (journal_write(req) != 0) {
> > > > > > +		fiber_set_txn(fiber(), txn);
> > > > > 
> > > > > I wonder why do you need to clear/set txn in txn_commit()?
> > > 
> > > Forgive me for being really painful about it, but why not use
> > > different complete callbacks for sync and async wal writes?-)
> > > Under the hood they will still call txn_complete(), but one will
> > > assert, and another will not?
> > 
> > Hmm. If I remember correctly we've been planning to use callbacks
> > only for async writes. Actually I can introduce callback helper
> > for sync writes as well but this ruines the whole idea, no?
> 
> But aren't you using the same callback for sync and async now?

Yes, but this is only because we _have_ to use callbacks in
wal engine for both sync\async writes. The general architecture
is that - sync writes do _not_have_ to use callbacks.

The use of callback in wal is transparent to the caller. At
least I tried to make it so.

> And if you are not using callback for sync, why do you need to
> manipulate with txn in sync?
> 
> I'm lost, I accept it. 

Because of wal and async engine in it :(

Look the whole idea is the following:

 - journal_write_async always use write_async_cb
 - journal_write should not use async write (or
   it could but transparently)
 - journal_write can complete transaction by self,
   for this sake it tests for TXN_IS_DONE bit and
   doesn't call for txn_complete if bit is set.

You know, I think we're in good shape right now
and can cleanup the series on top maybe?

> > I can easily hide this bit test inside txn_complete itself and
> > for sync write there will be plain txn_complete call, like
> > 
> > txn_commit
> > 	...
> > 	journal_write();
> > 	...
> > 	txn_complete();
> 
> My point is simple: can we avoid the whole mess of clearing and
> restoring fiber txn for sync write calls? 

Letme think about it. But I would prefer to make it on top.

  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-20 13:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-20  8:19 [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 00/11] journal redesign sync and async writes Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20  8:19 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 01/11] box: recovery_journal_create -- set journal here Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20  8:19 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 02/11] box: recovery_journal -- declare it as static Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20  8:19 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 03/11] box/txn: move fiber_set_txn to header Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20 10:13   ` Konstantin Osipov
2020-03-20 10:17     ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20 10:23       ` Konstantin Osipov
2020-03-20  8:19 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 04/11] box/txn: rename txn_write to txn_commit_async Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20  8:19 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 05/11] box/txn: move setup of txn start to txn_prepare Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20  8:19 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 06/11] box/txn: add txn_commit_nop helper Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20  8:19 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 07/11] box/txn: rename txn_entry_complete_cb to txn_complete_async Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20  8:19 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 08/11] box/txn: unweave txn_commit from txn_commit_async Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20  8:34   ` Oleg Babin
2020-03-20  8:46     ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20  8:59       ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20  8:19 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 09/11] box/txn: clear fiber storage right before journal write Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20  8:19 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 10/11] box/txn: move journal allocation into separate routine Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20  8:19 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 11/11] box/journal: redesign journal operations Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20 10:22   ` Konstantin Osipov
2020-03-20 10:29     ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20 10:58       ` Konstantin Osipov
2020-03-20 11:12         ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20 13:09           ` Konstantin Osipov
2020-03-20 13:33             ` Cyrill Gorcunov [this message]
2020-03-20 13:02         ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v16 " Cyrill Gorcunov
2020-03-20 13:34           ` Konstantin Osipov
2020-03-20 13:58 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 00/11] journal redesign sync and async writes Kirill Yukhin
2020-03-21 19:51   ` Konstantin Osipov
2020-04-08 11:12   ` Kirill Yukhin

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:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

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

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200320133302.GG8326@uranus \
    --to=gorcunov@gmail.com \
    --cc=kostja.osipov@gmail.com \
    --cc=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
    --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v15 11/11] box/journal: redesign journal operations' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* 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