[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9668?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15635012#comment-15635012
]
Jingcheng Du commented on HDFS-9668:
------------------------------------
Thanks a lot for the comments! [~eddyxu]
I'll upload a new patch to address the comments. It might take a little bit
more time to prepare the patch for branch-2, I'll do it asap.
bq. why does not ReplicaMap using itself as mutex? I might miss something. For
example, FsDatasetImpl#volumeMap is initialized with a FsDatasetImpl instance
as mutex. And the other operations within FsDatasetImpl are protected by
read/write locks added this patch. So this replicaMap is not synchronized with
the rest of FsDatasetImpl methods.
It allows the operations in ReplicaMap and instances from outside can be
protected by the same lock.
In old FsDatasetImpl, it uses synchronized(this) to protect the operations
which means ReplicaMap uses the same lock with FsDatasetImpl. And the static
method {{initReplicaRecovery}} in FsDatasetImpl can use this lock to protect
the code inside.
Now in this patch, the manner is retained which allows an outside lock in
ReplicaMap. But this lock is only used to synchronize the operations for this
map - the locks used in FsDatasetImpl and ReplicaMap, using itself as the lock
is fine, but how about to use the current way? :)
> Optimize the locking in FsDatasetImpl
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-9668
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-9668
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: datanode
> Reporter: Jingcheng Du
> Assignee: Jingcheng Du
> Attachments: HDFS-9668-1.patch, HDFS-9668-10.patch,
> HDFS-9668-11.patch, HDFS-9668-12.patch, HDFS-9668-13.patch,
> HDFS-9668-14.patch, HDFS-9668-14.patch, HDFS-9668-15.patch,
> HDFS-9668-16.patch, HDFS-9668-17.patch, HDFS-9668-18.patch,
> HDFS-9668-19.patch, HDFS-9668-19.patch, HDFS-9668-2.patch,
> HDFS-9668-20.patch, HDFS-9668-21.patch, HDFS-9668-22.patch,
> HDFS-9668-3.patch, HDFS-9668-4.patch, HDFS-9668-5.patch, HDFS-9668-6.patch,
> HDFS-9668-7.patch, HDFS-9668-8.patch, HDFS-9668-9.patch, execution_time.png
>
>
> During the HBase test on a tiered storage of HDFS (WAL is stored in
> SSD/RAMDISK, and all other files are stored in HDD), we observe many
> long-time BLOCKED threads on FsDatasetImpl in DataNode. The following is part
> of the jstack result:
> {noformat}
> "DataXceiver for client DFSClient_NONMAPREDUCE_-1626037897_1 at
> /192.168.50.16:48521 [Receiving block
> BP-1042877462-192.168.50.13-1446173170517:blk_1073779272_40852]" - Thread
> t@93336
> java.lang.Thread.State: BLOCKED
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.fsdataset.impl.FsDatasetImpl.createRbw(FsDatasetImpl.java:1111)
> - waiting to lock <18324c9> (a
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.fsdataset.impl.FsDatasetImpl) owned by
> "DataXceiver for client DFSClient_NONMAPREDUCE_-1626037897_1 at
> /192.168.50.16:48520 [Receiving block
> BP-1042877462-192.168.50.13-1446173170517:blk_1073779271_40851]" t@93335
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.fsdataset.impl.FsDatasetImpl.createRbw(FsDatasetImpl.java:113)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.BlockReceiver.<init>(BlockReceiver.java:183)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataXceiver.writeBlock(DataXceiver.java:615)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.protocol.datatransfer.Receiver.opWriteBlock(Receiver.java:137)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.protocol.datatransfer.Receiver.processOp(Receiver.java:74)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataXceiver.run(DataXceiver.java:235)
> at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
> Locked ownable synchronizers:
> - None
>
> "DataXceiver for client DFSClient_NONMAPREDUCE_-1626037897_1 at
> /192.168.50.16:48520 [Receiving block
> BP-1042877462-192.168.50.13-1446173170517:blk_1073779271_40851]" - Thread
> t@93335
> java.lang.Thread.State: RUNNABLE
> at java.io.UnixFileSystem.createFileExclusively(Native Method)
> at java.io.File.createNewFile(File.java:1012)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DatanodeUtil.createTmpFile(DatanodeUtil.java:66)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.fsdataset.impl.BlockPoolSlice.createRbwFile(BlockPoolSlice.java:271)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.fsdataset.impl.FsVolumeImpl.createRbwFile(FsVolumeImpl.java:286)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.fsdataset.impl.FsDatasetImpl.createRbw(FsDatasetImpl.java:1140)
> - locked <18324c9> (a
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.fsdataset.impl.FsDatasetImpl)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.fsdataset.impl.FsDatasetImpl.createRbw(FsDatasetImpl.java:113)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.BlockReceiver.<init>(BlockReceiver.java:183)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataXceiver.writeBlock(DataXceiver.java:615)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.protocol.datatransfer.Receiver.opWriteBlock(Receiver.java:137)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.protocol.datatransfer.Receiver.processOp(Receiver.java:74)
> at
> org.apache.hadoop.hdfs.server.datanode.DataXceiver.run(DataXceiver.java:235)
> at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
> Locked ownable synchronizers:
> - None
> {noformat}
> We measured the execution of some operations in FsDatasetImpl during the
> test. Here following is the result.
> !execution_time.png!
> The operations of finalizeBlock, addBlock and createRbw on HDD in a heavy
> load take a really long time.
> It means one slow operation of finalizeBlock, addBlock and createRbw in a
> slow storage can block all the other same operations in the same DataNode,
> especially in HBase when many wal/flusher/compactor are configured.
> We need a finer grained lock mechanism in a new FsDatasetImpl implementation
> and users can choose the implementation by configuring
> "dfs.datanode.fsdataset.factory" in DataNode.
> We can implement the lock by either storage level or block-level.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
