From: Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org> To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> Cc: tml <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org> Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v10 2/4] limbo: order access to the limbo terms Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2021 17:34:54 +0300 [thread overview] Message-ID: <edf03924-052d-4e65-9c7f-03271a11a8b4@tarantool.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <YQ1TKp9vOdVyb9K3@grain> On 06.08.2021 18:20, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote: > On Fri, Aug 06, 2021 at 01:29:57AM +0200, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote: >>> apply_synchro_row(uint32_t replica_id, struct xrow_header *row) >>> { >>> assert(iproto_type_is_synchro_request(row->type)); >>> + int rc = 0; >>> >>> struct synchro_request req; >>> if (xrow_decode_synchro(row, &req) != 0) >>> goto err; >>> >>> + txn_limbo_term_lock(&txn_limbo); >> >> Maybe you should hide the lock from the API. Instead, do similar to >> what transactions do: >> >> int txn_limbo_process_begin(limbo *); >> void txn_limbo_process_commit(limbo *, request *); >> void txn_limbo_process_rollback(limbo *); >> >> begin would take the lock, commit would do the request and >> unlock, rollback would only unlock. Commit and rollback you >> call from apply_synchro_row_cb depend in on the WAL write >> result. >> >> Then the locks would disappear from the API, right? > > Unfortunatelly locking is needed not only for processing but > for reading terms as well. We have a few helpers more which > are waiting the other fibers to complete before reading terms. > > applier_apply_tx > applier_synchro_filter_tx > txn_limbo_is_replica_outdated > txn_limbo_term_lock > txn_limbo_replica_term_locked > txn_limbo_term_unlock > > And a number of calls for txn_limbo_replica_term which reads > term in a locked way because we need to eliminate potential > race here and fetch only last written data. > > So no, locking won't disappear. Another option may be to > introduce preemption disabling (just like kernel does for > tasks which should not be rescheduled on a core while > they are wating for some action to complete). Then our > write for synchro packets would look like > > preempt_disable(); > rc = journal_write(); > preempt_enable(); > > which would guarantee us that while we're waiting the journal > to finish its write no other fibers from the cord will be > executed and we gotta be woken up once write is complete. > > This way I think we will be allowed to drop locking at all > because main problem is exactly because of other fibers get > running while we're writing synchro data. > >> In the next patch you would make txn_limbo_process_begin() >> also take the request to validate it. Then the 'filtering' >> would become internal to the limbo. I didn't propose to drop the locking. I said it could be hidden inside of the limbo's API. In the only example above you show: > txn_limbo_term_lock > txn_limbo_replica_term_locked > txn_limbo_term_unlock Here the lock is done inside of the limbo's API too. It is not exposed on the limbo's API level. So the questions is the same - can it be hidden inside of the API? Are there any usages of the lock done explicitly out of the limo?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-08-08 14:35 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-08-04 19:07 [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v10 0/4] limbo: implement packets filtering Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-04 19:07 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v10 1/4] latch: add latch_is_locked helper Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-04 19:07 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v10 2/4] limbo: order access to the limbo terms Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-05 23:29 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-06 15:20 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-08 14:34 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches [this message] 2021-08-09 16:24 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-10 12:27 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-10 12:57 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-23 11:32 ` Serge Petrenko via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-23 11:41 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-09-01 16:04 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-04 19:07 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v10 3/4] limbo: filter incoming synchro requests Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-05 23:33 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-06 19:01 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-08 11:43 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-08 22:35 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-10 12:31 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-10 14:36 ` Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-12 16:59 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-04 19:07 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v10 4/4] test: add replication/gh-6036-rollback-confirm Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-05 9:38 ` [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v10 0/4] limbo: implement packets filtering Cyrill Gorcunov via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-05 23:29 ` Vladislav Shpilevoy via Tarantool-patches 2021-08-08 22:03 ` 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: 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=edf03924-052d-4e65-9c7f-03271a11a8b4@tarantool.org \ --to=tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org \ --cc=gorcunov@gmail.com \ --cc=v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org \ --subject='Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v10 2/4] limbo: order access to the limbo terms' \ /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