Hey Dmitry,
sorry for the late reply, I'll try to bake a pr later during the day.
Best regards,
Vladisav
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:05 AM, Dmitry Karachentsev
<dkarachent...@gridgain.com <mailto:dkarachent...@gridgain.com>>
wrote:
Hi Vladislav,
I see you're developing [1] for a while, did you have any
chance to fix it? If no, is there any estimate?
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1977
<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-1977>
Thanks!
-Dmitry.
20.03.2017 10:28, Alexey Goncharuk пишет:
I think re-creation should be handled by a user who will
make sure that
nobody else is currently executing the guarded logic
before the
re-creation. This is exactly the same semantics as with
BrokenBarrierException for j.u.c.CyclicBarrier.
2017-03-17 2:39 GMT+03:00 Vladisav Jelisavcic
<vladis...@gmail.com <mailto:vladis...@gmail.com>>:
Hi everyone,
I agree with Val, he's got a point; recreating the
lock doesn't seem
possible
(at least not the with the transactional cache
lock/semaphore we have).
Is this re-create behavior really needed?
Best regards,
Vladisav
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 8:34 PM, Valentin Kulichenko <
valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com
<mailto:valentin.kuliche...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Guys,
How does recreation of the lock helps? My
understanding is that scenario
is
the following:
1. Client A creates and acquires a lock, and then
starts to execute
guarded
logic.
2. Client B tries to acquire the same lock and
parks to wait.
3. Before client A unlocks, all affinity nodes
for the lock fail, lock
disappears from the cache.
4. Client B fails with exception, recreates the
lock, acquires it, and
starts to execute guarded logic concurrently with
client A.
In my view this is wrong anyway, regardless of
whether this happens
silently or with an exception handled in user's
code. Because this code
doesn't have any way to know if client A still
holds the lock or not.
Am I missing something?
-Val
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:14 AM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
dsetrak...@apache.org <mailto:dsetrak...@apache.org>
wrote:
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 12:46 AM, Alexey
Goncharuk <
alexey.goncha...@gmail.com
<mailto:alexey.goncha...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Which user operation would result in
exception? To my knowledge,
user
may
already be holding the lock and not
invoking any Ignite APIs, no?
Yes, this is exactly my point.
Imagine that a node already holds a lock
and another node is waiting
for
the lock. If all partition nodes leave
the grid and the lock is
re-created,
this second node will immediately acquire
the lock and we will have
two
lock owners. I think in this case this
second node (blocked on
lock())
should get an exception saying that the
lock was lost (which is, by
the
way, the current behavior), and the first
node should get an
exception
on
unlock.
Makes sense.
