[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HDFS-13165?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Rakesh R updated HDFS-13165:
----------------------------
    Attachment: HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-04.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, 
> HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-01.patch, HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-02.patch, 
> HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-03.patch, HDFS-13165-HDFS-10285-04.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: hdfs-issues-unsubscr...@hadoop.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: hdfs-issues-h...@hadoop.apache.org

Reply via email to