On 18 Jun 2013, at 14:16, Dan Berindei <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Mircea Markus <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 17 Jun 2013, at 16:11, Dan Berindei <[email protected]> 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. > > > Nope, tx1 doesn't lock k1 on B because it doesn't do a put(k1, v3) - it only > reads the value from B. So even if tx2 does lock k1 on B, it doesn't add any > synchronization between tx1 and tx2. A lock is being acquired even without L1 enabled on A: https://github.com/an1310/infinispan/blob/master/core/src/main/java/org/infinispan/interceptors/distribution/TxDistributionInterceptor.java#L405 > > But tx1 does write the entry to L1 on A, so it should acquire an "L1 lock" on > A - and tx2 should also acquire the same lock. Cheers, -- Mircea Markus Infinispan lead (www.infinispan.org) _______________________________________________ infinispan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/infinispan-dev
