[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7585?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14557567#comment-14557567
 ] 

Shawn Heisey commented on SOLR-7585:
------------------------------------

The test fails precommit.

[forbidden-apis] Forbidden method invocation: 
java.util.concurrent.Executors#newFixedThreadPool(int) [Spawns threads with 
vague names; use a custom thread factory (Lucene's NamedThreadFactory, Solr's 
DefaultSolrThreadFactory) and name threads so that you can tell (by its name) 
which executor it is associated with]
[forbidden-apis]   in org.apache.solr.search.TestLFUCache 
(TestLFUCache.java:371)

I'm looking at existing uses of DefaultSolrThreadFactory trying to figure out 
how to adapt it to this test code, but it's not making sense to me.

> ConcurrentLFUCache throws NoSuchElementException under a write-heavy load
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: SOLR-7585
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SOLR-7585
>             Project: Solr
>          Issue Type: Bug
>    Affects Versions: 5.1
>            Reporter: Maciej Zasada
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: SOLR-7585.patch, SOLR-7585.patch, SOLR-7585.patch, 
> SOLR-7585.patch
>
>
> Under a write-heavy load {{ConcurrentLFUCache}} throws 
> {{NoSuchElementException}}. The problem lies within 
> {{org.apache.solr.util.ConcurrentLFUCache#put}} method, which allows for a 
> race condition between the check and the call to {{markAndSweep}} method. 
> Despite that a thread must acquire a lock to perform sweeping, it's still 
> possible that multiple threads successfully detected a need for calling 
> markAndSweep. If they execute it sequentially, subsequent runs will fail with 
> {{NoSuchElementException}}.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to