On 17 Jun 2013, at 16:11, Dan Berindei <dan.berin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think that, given that the local node is not owner, the lock acquisition > > is redundant even for pessimistic caches. > > Mind creating a test to check if dropping that lock acquisition doesn't > > break things? > > I created a JIRA with low priority since it does not affect the > transaction outcome/isolation and I believe the performance impact > should be lower (you can increase the priority if you want). > > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ISPN-3237 > > If we don't lock the L1 entry, I think something like this could happen: There is a lock happening *without* L1 enabled. > > tx1@A: remote get(k1) from B - stores k1=v1 in invocation context > tx2@A: write(k1, v2) > tx2@A: commit - writes k1=v2 in L1 > tx1@A: commit - overwrites k1=v1 in L1 > > Cheers, -- Mircea Markus Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list infinispan-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
