On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Rafal Rusin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello, > > could you explain me a bit bpel execution regarding BpelRuntimeContext? > I saw a following happened: > > 09:59:25,185 | INFO | pool-4-thread-4 | BpelRuntimeContextImpl | > .engine.BpelRuntimeContextImpl 160 | BpelRuntimeContextImpl created > for instance 20598 24589427 > 09:59:25,269 | INFO | pool-4-thread-7 | BpelRuntimeContextImpl | > .engine.BpelRuntimeContextImpl 160 | BpelRuntimeContextImpl created > for instance 20598 1821816 > 09:59:25,628 | INFO | pool-4-thread-4 | BpelRuntimeContextImpl | > .engine.BpelRuntimeContextImpl 843 | BpelRuntimeContextImpl setting > execution state on instance 20598 24589427 > 09:59:25,781 | INFO | pool-4-thread-7 | BpelRuntimeContextImpl | > .engine.BpelRuntimeContextImpl 843 | BpelRuntimeContextImpl setting > execution state on instance 20598 1821816 > Is that on trunk or 1.x ? In any case I'm puzzled as to how this is possible. There's a big lock on instances so that a given instance can't be executed by two threads in parallel. Check BpelEngineImpl.onScheduledJob. Given that an INVOKE_RESPONSE handling goes through this method, it's surprising. Logging on the lock manager could provide more details. And the isolation level READ_COMMITTED is the correct one. With a "lower" isolation level, several assumptions coded in the engine would be broken as transactions start influencing each other (which gets tricky in a highly multi-threaded, shared environment). Thanks, Matthieu > > The numbers at the end (24589427 and 1821816) are hash ids for > BpelRuntimeContextImpl. > It happened after executing concurrently two jobs INVOKE_RESPONSE for > invoke1 and invoke3. A bpel process was like this: > <flow> > <sequence> > <invoke1/> > <invoke2/> > </sequence> > <sequence> > <invoke3/> > <invoke4/> > </sequence> > </flow> > > My question is whether such execution should be made synchronized in > ODE? Here setting execution state happened concurrently in > pool-4-thread-4 and pool-4-thread-7. > I used transaction isolation level READ_COMMITTED (a default one). In > this scenario, I had two jobs concurrently, successfully committed and > no critical section was used. > Both transactions saw committed data, so READ_COMMITTED was held. > It lead to storing incorrect execution state for process instance in > DB, since one INVOKE_RESPONSE job work was lost due to overwritten > data. > What transaction isolation level is correct for ODE? And what should I > do to correct this scenario? Do you have any clues? > > I had an error in Oracle: > 09:59:27,383 | ERROR | pool-4-thread-7 | JacobVPU | > b.vpu.JacobVPU$JacobThreadImpl 463 | Method "run" in class > "org.apache.ode.bpel.engine.BpelRuntimeContextImpl$6" threw an > unexpected excep > tion. > java.lang.IllegalArgumentException: No such channel; id=225 > at > org.apache.ode.jacob.vpu.ExecutionQueueImpl.findChannelFrame(ExecutionQueueImpl.java:205) > at > org.apache.ode.jacob.vpu.ExecutionQueueImpl.consumeExport(ExecutionQueueImpl.java:232) > at > org.apache.ode.jacob.vpu.JacobVPU$JacobThreadImpl.importChannel(JacobVPU.java:369) > at > org.apache.ode.jacob.JacobObject.importChannel(JacobObject.java:47) > at > org.apache.ode.bpel.engine.BpelRuntimeContextImpl$6.run(BpelRuntimeContextImpl.java:967) > at sun.reflect.GeneratedMethodAccessor120.invoke(Unknown Source) > at > sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:25) > at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:585) > at > org.apache.ode.jacob.vpu.JacobVPU$JacobThreadImpl.run(JacobVPU.java:451) > at org.apache.ode.jacob.vpu.JacobVPU.execute(JacobVPU.java:139) > at > org.apache.ode.bpel.engine.BpelRuntimeContextImpl.execute(BpelRuntimeContextImpl.java:839) > at > org.apache.ode.bpel.engine.BpelProcess.handleWorkEvent(BpelProcess.java:418) > at > org.apache.ode.bpel.engine.BpelEngineImpl.onScheduledJob(BpelEngineImpl.java:424) > at > org.apache.ode.bpel.engine.BpelServerImpl.onScheduledJob(BpelServerImpl.java:377) > at > org.apache.ode.scheduler.simple.SimpleScheduler$4$1.call(SimpleScheduler.java:386) > at > org.apache.ode.scheduler.simple.SimpleScheduler$4$1.call(SimpleScheduler.java:380) > at > org.apache.ode.scheduler.simple.SimpleScheduler.execTransaction(SimpleScheduler.java:208) > at > org.apache.ode.scheduler.simple.SimpleScheduler$4.call(SimpleScheduler.java:379) > at > org.apache.ode.scheduler.simple.SimpleScheduler$4.call(SimpleScheduler.java:376) > at > java.util.concurrent.FutureTask$Sync.innerRun(FutureTask.java:269) > at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:123) > at > java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.runTask(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:650) > at > java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:675) > at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:595) > > > And in Derby, there was a dead lock. > > Regards, > -- > Rafał Rusin > www.mimuw.edu.pl/~rrusin <http://www.mimuw.edu.pl/%7Errusin> >
