I don't think we need a lock even for updating, check it copy on write array
list.
On Mar 1, 2011 12:45 PM, "Gary Helmling" <ghelml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I was just looking at the write lock references as well.
>
> I'm not sure RegionCoprocessorHost.preClose() would really need the write
> lock? As you say, there is still a race in HRegion.doClose() between
> preClose() completing and HRegion.lock.writeLock() being taken out, so
other
> methods could still be called after.
>
> RegionCoprocessorHost.postClose() occurs under the HRegion write lock, so
> any read lock operations would already have to have completed by this
point.
> So here we wouldn't really need the coprocessor write lock either?
>
> It seems like we could actually drop the coprocessor lock, since
> coprocessors are currently loaded prior to region open completing.
>
> Online coprocessor loading (not currently provided) could be handled in
the
> future by a lock just for loading, and creating a new coprocessor
collection
> and assigning when done.
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:08 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryano...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My own profiling shows that a read write lock can be up to 3-6% of the
>> CPU budget in our put/get query path. Adding another one if not
>> necessary would probably not be good.
>>
>> In fact in the region coprocessor the only thing the write lock is
>> used for is the preClose and postClose, but looking in the
>> implementation of those methods I don't really get why this is
>> necessary. The write lock ensures single thread access, but there is
>> nothing that prevents other threads from calling other methods AFTER
>> the postClose?
>>
>> -ryan
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Gary Helmling <ghelml...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > All the CoprocessorHost invocations should be wrapped in "if (cpHost !=
>> > null)". We could just added an extra check for whether any coprocessors
>> are
>> > loaded -- "if (cpHost != null && cpHost.isActive())", something like
>> that?
>> > Or the CoprocessorHost methods could do this checking internally.
>> >
>> > Either way should be relatively easy to bypass the lock acquisition. Is
>> > there much overhead to acquiring a read lock if the write lock is never
>> > taken though? (just wondering)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Stack <st...@duboce.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> So, I'm debugging something else but thread dumping I see a bunch of
>> this:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "IPC Server handler 6 on 61020" daemon prio=10 tid=0x00000000422d2800
>> >> nid=0x7714 runnable [0x00007f1c5acea000]
>> >> java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE
>> >> at
>> >>
>>
java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock$Sync.fullTryAcquireShared(ReentrantReadWriteLock.java:434)
>> >> at
>> >>
>>
java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock$Sync.tryAcquireShared(ReentrantReadWriteLock.java:404)
>> >> at
>> >>
>>
java.util.concurrent.locks.AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.acquireShared(AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java:1260)
>> >> at
>> >>
>>
java.util.concurrent.locks.ReentrantReadWriteLock$ReadLock.lock(ReentrantReadWriteLock.java:594)
>> >> at
>> >>
>>
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.RegionCoprocessorHost.prePut(RegionCoprocessorHost.java:532)
>> >> at
>> >>
>>
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.HRegion.doMiniBatchPut(HRegion.java:1476)
>> >> at
>> >> org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.HRegion.put(HRegion.java:1454)
>> >> at
>> >>
>>
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.regionserver.HRegionServer.multi(HRegionServer.java:2652)
>> >> at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
>> >> at
>> >>
>>
sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:39)
>> >> at
>> >>
>>
sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25)
>> >> at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:597)
>> >> at
>> >>
>>
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.ipc.WritableRpcEngine$Server.call(WritableRpcEngine.java:309)
>> >> at
>> >>
>>
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.ipc.HBaseServer$Handler.run(HBaseServer.java:1060)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Do others? I don't have any CPs loaded. I'm wondering if we can do
>> >> more to just avoid the CP codepath if no CPs loaded.
>> >>
>> >> St.Ack
>> >>
>> >
>>
