[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-9365?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Mark Hanson reassigned GEODE-9365:
----------------------------------

    Assignee: Mark Hanson

> HARegionQueue over throttles when multiple threads attempt concurrent adds
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: GEODE-9365
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GEODE-9365
>             Project: Geode
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: client queues
>            Reporter: Darrel Schneider
>            Assignee: Mark Hanson
>            Priority: Major
>              Labels: GeodeOperationAPI
>
> HARegionQueue.checkQueueSizeConstraint has some code that implements a 
> "throttle" on adds to a queue that is full. It is supposed to wait 
> "eventEnqueueWaitTime" before doing an add. But because this code does two 
> syncs (putGuard and permitMon) and only waits on one of them, it holds the 
> other sync for the duration of this threads throttle. Any other concurrent 
> thread trying to add to the queue gets stuck on the putGuard sync that is 
> held by the first thread that is doing the timed wait. So it ends up waiting 
> "eventEnqueueWaitTime" to acquire the first sync and then ends up waiting 
> again "eventEnqueueWaitTime" when it does its own timed wait. If you have 10 
> concurrent threads trying to add one of them will end up waiting 10 *  
> "eventEnqueueWaitTime".
> A couple ideas of how to fix this. Get rid of the putGuard and just use 
> permitMon. Then as soon as the first thread goes into its timed wait another 
> thread is allowed to sync on permitMon. But if this is done then we need to 
> think carefully about the code inside this sync block since it can not be 
> executed while one or more other threads are waiting in permitMon.
> The other solution would be to compute the elapsed time it took to get into 
> the first sync and subtract that from the time we wait on permitMon. This 
> seems like a simple solution but does introduce at least one call of get time 
> (the second call is only needed if the queue is full).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)

Reply via email to