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.
next prev parent 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