From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lj1-f194.google.com (mail-lj1-f194.google.com [209.85.208.194]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 052C34696C3 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 18:48:41 +0300 (MSK) Received: by mail-lj1-f194.google.com with SMTP id h4so4548062ljg.12 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 08:48:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 18:48:40 +0300 From: Konstantin Osipov Message-ID: <20200427154840.GB2279@atlas> References: <3f1e18cc-cc18-b586-825b-3e4e3a9c8e3f@tarantool.org> <20200427121701.GA30870@tarantool.org> <20200427123936.GA24638@atlas> <20200427151854.GE30870@tarantool.org> <20200427152055.GA2279@atlas> <20200427153725.GG30870@tarantool.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200427153725.GG30870@tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH] vinyl: unthrottle scheduler on checkpoint List-Id: Tarantool development patches List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Nikita Pettik Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org, Vladislav Shpilevoy * Nikita Pettik [20/04/27 18:40]: > > > > > Checkpoint daemon uses directly box.snapshot(), so now we can't tell > > > > > whether checkpoint is launched manually or automatically. To differ > > > > > these scenarious we can make checkpoint daemon call sort of > > > > > box.__scheduled_snapshot() (which won't be part of public API ofc). > > > > > Then we will be able to pass boolean parameter to begin_checkpoint() > > > > > indicating manual/auto mode. Or simply close issue as wont fix :) > > > > > > > > Uhm, no, checkpoint daemon uses gc_do_checkpoint() and it doesn't > > > > use box.snapshot(). > > > > > > Seems we are looking at different branches: 1.10 still uses checkpoint > > > daemon written in Lua. If this patch should be pushed to master branch > > > only, then I guess it would be easy to patch engine_begin_checkpoint() > > > and make it accept argument responsible for checkpoint mode (scheduled > > > or manual). > > > > Why do you need to fix 1.10? > > For instance, it would make test backporting process easier. > Otherwise we will get different behaviours while using > ERRINJ_VY_SCHED_TIMEOUT error injection. Well, I guess then 1.10 will require a separate fix. I don't see why you even consider a possibility of unthrottling the scheduling in all cases in 1.10. It's a stable/lts release, and what you're trying to do is not any customer's problem, you simply shouldn't risk breaking ppl for no good reason. -- Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia https://scylladb.com