Tarantool development patches archive
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
	Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Cc: tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v27 2/3] qsync: order access to the limbo terms
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 17:01:00 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <77b533c1-0c2f-c11d-0aa6-4109674a7025@tarantool.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yd3rDf460NT+KbvJ@grain>

11.01.2022 23:39, Cyrill Gorcunov пишет:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 05:28:43PM +0300, Serge Petrenko wrote:
>>     Hi! Thanks for the patch!
>>     box_issue_promote() and box_issue_demote() need fine-grained locking
>>     anyway.
>>     Otherwise it’s possible that promote() is already issued, but not yet
>>     written to WAL, and some
>>     outdated request is applied by applier at that exact moment.
> True. And in previous series Vlad has asked to not move in code which is
> not covered by tests. So I think this is a task for the next part. Currently
> we cover only the race between appliers.

Let's ask Vlad, then.

I feel like we should fix this now, not waiting for a full fine-grained 

First of all, this is a known bug (and fine-grained locking was meant to
cover everything we don't know of, just in case).

Besides, simply locking issue_promote/issue_demote should be
much easier than implementing the fine-grained locking patch.

>>     You should take the lock before the WAL write, and release it only after
>>     txn_limbo_apply.
>>     No need to guard every limbo function there is, but we have to guard
>>     everything that
>>     writes PROMOTE/DEMOTE.
> ...
>>       @@ -216,7 +225,7 @@ txn_limbo_last_entry(struct txn_limbo *limbo)
>>         * @a replica_id.
>>         */
>>        static inline uint64_t
>>       -txn_limbo_replica_term(const struct txn_limbo *limbo, uint32_t
>>       replica_id)
>>       +txn_limbo_replica_term(struct txn_limbo *limbo, uint32_t replica_id)
>>        {
>>     You’ve forgot to lock the latch here, I guess.
> I did it on a purpose. As you remember we've faced many problems when tried
> to implement fine-grained locking inside limbo code. So I dropped this idea
> eventually and I think we could start with explicit locks to cover the applier
> race and then walk via small steps trying to cover the rest.

Ok, then return `const ` to the function declaration, please.

>>       +/**
>>       + * Initiate execution of a synchronous replication request.
>>       + */
>>       +static inline void
>>       +txn_limbo_begin(struct txn_limbo *limbo)
>>       +{
>>       + limbo->promote_latch_cnt++;
>>       + latch_lock(&limbo->promote_latch);
>>     I suppose you should decrease the latch_cnt right after acquiring the
>>     lock.
>>     Otherwise you count the sole «limbo user» together with «limbo waiters».
> Yes, this will represent accumulated value. To be honest I never saw such
> approach in any other code (ie increment/lock/decrement) but I think this
> is fine for fibres, will do.

It just looks strange to me that `synchro.queue.waiters` will be 
non-zero when
someone simply uses the limbo.

They are `waiters`, not `users` or something else.

> 	Cyrill

Serge Petrenko

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-12 14:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-30 20:23 [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v27 0/3] qsync: implement packet filtering (part 1) Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-12-30 20:23 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v27 1/3] latch: add latch_is_locked helper Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-12-30 20:23 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v27 2/3] qsync: order access to the limbo terms Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2022-01-10 14:28   ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2022-01-11 20:39     ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2022-01-12 14:01       ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches [this message]
2022-01-12 21:30         ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2022-01-13 10:13           ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2022-01-13 23:32             ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches
2022-01-14 10:20               ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2022-01-14 10:33                 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2021-12-30 20:23 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v27 3/3] test: add gh-6036-qsync-order test Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches
2022-01-10 14:29   ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches
2022-01-11 20:41     ` Cyrill Gorcunov 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=77b533c1-0c2f-c11d-0aa6-4109674a7025@tarantool.org \
    --to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \
    --cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \
    --cc=sergepetrenko@tarantool.org \
    --cc=v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org \
    --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v27 2/3] qsync: order access to the limbo terms' \


* 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