[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-59?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Flavio Paiva Junqueira updated ZOOKEEPER-59:
--------------------------------------------
Description:
There are two synchronized blocks locking on different objects, and to me they
should be guarded by the same object. Here are the parts of the code I'm
talking about:
{quote}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
synchronized (this) {
outstandingRequests++;
// check throttling
if (zk.getInProcess() > factory.outstandingLimit) {
disableRecv();
// following lines should not be needed since we are already
// reading
// } else {
// enableRecv();
}
}
{quote}
{quote}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
synchronized (this.factory) {
outstandingRequests--;
// check throttling
if (zk.getInProcess() < factory.outstandingLimit
|| outstandingRequests < 1) {
sk.selector().wakeup();
enableRecv();
}
}
{quote}
I think the second one is correct, and the first synchronized block should be
guarded by "this.factory".
This could be related to issue ZOOKEEPER-57, but I have no concrete indication
that this is the case so far.
was:
There are two synchronized blocks locking on different objects, and to me they
should be guarded by the same object. Here are the parts of the code I'm
talking about:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
synchronized (this) {
outstandingRequests++;
// check throttling
if (zk.getInProcess() > factory.outstandingLimit) {
disableRecv();
// following lines should not be needed since we are already
// reading
// } else {
// enableRecv();
}
}
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
synchronized (this.factory) {
outstandingRequests--;
// check throttling
if (zk.getInProcess() < factory.outstandingLimit
|| outstandingRequests < 1) {
sk.selector().wakeup();
enableRecv();
}
}
I think the second one is correct, and the first synchronized block should be
guarded by "this.factory".
This could be related to issue ZOOKEEPER-57, but I have no concrete indication
that this is the case so far.
Summary: Synchronized block in NIOServerCnxn (was: Synchornized block
in NIOServerCnxn)
> Synchronized block in NIOServerCnxn
> -----------------------------------
>
> Key: ZOOKEEPER-59
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ZOOKEEPER-59
> Project: Zookeeper
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: server
> Reporter: Flavio Paiva Junqueira
>
> There are two synchronized blocks locking on different objects, and to me
> they should be guarded by the same object. Here are the parts of the code I'm
> talking about:
> {quote}
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ...
> synchronized (this) {
> outstandingRequests++;
> // check throttling
> if (zk.getInProcess() > factory.outstandingLimit) {
> disableRecv();
> // following lines should not be needed since we are
> already
> // reading
> // } else {
> // enableRecv();
> }
> }
> {quote}
> {quote}
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ...
> synchronized (this.factory) {
> outstandingRequests--;
> // check throttling
> if (zk.getInProcess() < factory.outstandingLimit
> || outstandingRequests < 1) {
> sk.selector().wakeup();
> enableRecv();
> }
> }
> {quote}
> I think the second one is correct, and the first synchronized block should be
> guarded by "this.factory".
> This could be related to issue ZOOKEEPER-57, but I have no concrete
> indication that this is the case so far.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
