[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13165?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Rakesh R updated HDFS-13165:
----------------------------
Status: Patch Available (was: Open)
Attached initial patch to get early feedback. Appreciate review help. Thanks!
FYI, in this patch, I have just collected all the blocks at
{{BlockStorageMovementAttemptedItems}} and not checking whether this block has
reported from the movement scheduled datanode. I will include this logic, in my
next patch.
> [SPS]: Collects successfully moved block details via IBR
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HDFS-13165
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13165
> Project: Hadoop HDFS
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Reporter: Rakesh R
> Assignee: Rakesh R
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-00.patch
>
>
> This task to make use of the existing IBR to get moved block details and
> remove unwanted future tracking logic exists in BlockStorageMovementTracker
> code, this is no more needed as the file level tracking maintained at NN
> itself.
> Following comments taken from HDFS-10285,
> [here|https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-10285?focusedCommentId=16347472&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-16347472]
> Comment-3)
> {quote}BPServiceActor
> Is it actually sending back the moved blocks? Aren’t IBRs sufficient?{quote}
> Comment-21)
> {quote}
> BlockStorageMovementTracker
> Many data structures are riddled with non-threadsafe race conditions and risk
> of CMEs.
> Ex. The moverTaskFutures map. Adding new blocks and/or adding to a block's
> list of futures is synchronized. However the run loop does an unsynchronized
> block get, unsynchronized future remove, unsynchronized isEmpty, possibly
> another unsynchronized get, only then does it do a synchronized remove of the
> block. The whole chunk of code should be synchronized.
> Is the problematic moverTaskFutures even needed? It's aggregating futures
> per-block for seemingly no reason. Why track all the futures at all instead
> of just relying on the completion service? As best I can tell:
> It's only used to determine if a future from the completion service should be
> ignored during shutdown. Shutdown sets the running boolean to false and
> clears the entire datastructure so why not use the running boolean like a
> check just a little further down?
> As synchronization to sleep up to 2 seconds before performing a blocking
> moverCompletionService.take, but only when it thinks there are no active
> futures. I'll ignore the missed notify race that the bounded wait masks, but
> the real question is why not just do the blocking take?
> Why all the complexity? Am I missing something?
> BlocksMovementsStatusHandler
> Suffers same type of thread safety issues as StoragePolicySatisfyWorker. Ex.
> blockIdVsMovementStatus is inconsistent synchronized. Does synchronize to
> return an unmodifiable list which sadly does nothing to protect the caller
> from CME.
> handle is iterating over a non-thread safe list.
> {quote}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
