git-hulk commented on code in PR #577:
URL: https://github.com/apache/incubator-kvrocks/pull/577#discussion_r873168955
##########
src/lock_manager.cc:
##########
@@ -51,3 +51,7 @@ void LockManager::Lock(const rocksdb::Slice &key) {
void LockManager::UnLock(const rocksdb::Slice &key) {
mutex_pool_[hash(key)]->unlock();
}
+
+void LockManager::LockTwo(const rocksdb::Slice &first_key, const
rocksdb::Slice &second_key) {
+ std::lock(*mutex_pool_[hash(first_key)], *mutex_pool_[hash(second_key)]);
Review Comment:
This way may unlock the wrong mutex? coz the unlock method didn't
recalculate the mutex index. After reconsidering, to avoid deadlock that we
need to do below things:
1. Do NOT acquire the same lock in the single thread
2. Acquire locks with the hash index order, this may also cause deadlock if
one thread acquired the `keys A B` and another acquired `B A`
Maybe I can try to implement multi locks.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
