[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-413?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=17772023#comment-17772023
]
Phil Steitz commented on POOL-413:
----------------------------------
Thanks for reporting this. The analysis looks correct to me. It is possible
for the first check to succeed and then another thread returns an instance
before the first thread adds the instance to the idle pool. Patches welcome
for a fix. One thing to bear in mind: this is a very "hot" method, so we want
to avoid adding locks / sync if possible.
> [GOP] Race condition while returning objects. maxIdle is ignored
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: POOL-413
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/POOL-413
> Project: Commons Pool
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Adrien Bernard
> Priority: Major
> Attachments:
> 0001-Add-test-to-reproduce-concurrency-issue-when-returni.patch
>
>
> In a GenericObjectPool it is possible to configure a maximum number of idle
> objects to be kept by the pool while they are not in use.
> In unfortunate circumstances, if several threads return an object to the pool
> at the same time, the check on the maximum number of idle objects may be
> dismissed. This results in pool keeping more idle objects than configured.
> I have build a unit test to reproduce the issue. I attach it as a patch made
> on top of release 2.12.0. On my machine it randomly fails with a 10% rate.
> Looking into the source code of the returnObject method of the GOP, it seems
> that there is no synchronisation between the moment the check is made for the
> maxIdle configuration and the moment the object is destroyed :
> {code:java}
> final int maxIdleSave = getMaxIdle();
> if (isClosed() || maxIdleSave > -1 && maxIdleSave <= idleObjects.size()) {
> try {
> destroy(p, DestroyMode.NORMAL);
> } catch (final Exception e) {
> swallowException(e);
> }
> try {
> ensureIdle(1, false);
> } catch (final Exception e) {
> swallowException(e);
> }
> } {code}
> Have you thoughts on this ?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.10#820010)
