Sounds good. Let me work on this and get back On 2 Jul 2015 23:37, "Alexey Goncharuk" <alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is the idea behind this ticket: > > Currently when putAll is invoked on an ATOMIC cache, all involved entries > are locked on primary nodes. The entries are locked as a batch on primary > nodes in order to support batch update of a cache store. To avoid > deadlocks, we require a user to provide a proper ordering of the keys being > passed to putAll methods. This requirement can be relaxed: > - We do not need to lock all entries as a batch if there is no store > configured or skipStore flag is set. Individual entry updates should be > enough. > - When cache store is configured, we can change the order of entries in > putAll because this is not a transactional cache. Currently we can exploit > the fact that the keys are already represented as CacheObjects and use > their serialized form to provide unified ordering and avoid deadlocks. > > 2015-07-02 9:17 GMT-07:00 Atri Sharma <atri.j...@gmail.com>: > > > Thanks. > > > > Alexey, please advice > > On 2 Jul 2015 21:43, "Andrey Gura" <ag...@gridgain.com> wrote: > > > > > Atri, > > > > > > Unfortunatelly I can't give any advice. May be Alexey Goncharuk can > help. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 4:24 PM, Atri Sharma <atri.j...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > Andrey, > > > > > > > > Since you created JIRA, could you please provide some context around > > it? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Atri > > > > *l'apprenant* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Andrey Gura > > > GridGain Systems, Inc. > > > www.gridgain.com > > > > > >
