[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8877?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Dave Latham updated HBASE-8877:
-------------------------------
Attachment: HBASE-8877-refCounts-v2.patch
Thanks, Ted, for taking a look. Sorry for changing the same file while you
were looking.
{quote}Should an assertion (or exception) be placed in the if block above
?{quote}
The same behavior is there in the previous patch (v7) (and nearly the same in
trunk as well) so it's not really a change. That said, this state cannot
happen as I read the code, but if it did then the row locks may be stuck, so an
exception sounds good to me so that it would be louder.
{quote}Can RowLock class be package private ?{quote}
It should be the same scope as the getRowLock method (needed for clients to
keep references and release them) which I believe we decided to be public (for
CPs for example).
I've attached HBASE-8877-refCounts-v2.patch with the change to throw an
exception on inconsistent row lock state.
> Reentrant row locks
> -------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-8877
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-8877
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Coprocessors, regionserver
> Reporter: Dave Latham
> Assignee: Dave Latham
> Fix For: 0.95.2
>
> Attachments: hbase-8877-0.94-microbenchmark.txt,
> HBASE-8877-0.94.patch, HBASE-8877-0.94-v2.patch, HBASE-8877.patch,
> hbase-8877-refCounts-microbenchmarks.txt, HBASE-8877-refCounts.patch,
> HBASE-8877-refCounts-v2.patch, HBASE-8877-v2.patch, HBASE-8877-v3.patch,
> hbase-8877-v4-microbenchmark.txt, HBASE-8877-v4.patch, HBASE-8877-v5.patch,
> HBASE-8877-v6.patch, HBASE-8877-v7.patch
>
>
> HBASE-8806 revealed performance problems with batch mutations failing to
> reacquire the same row locks. It looks like HBASE-8806 will use a less
> intrusive change for 0.94 to have batch mutations track their own row locks
> and not attempt to reacquire them. Another approach will be to support
> reentrant row locks directly. This allows simplifying a great deal of
> calling code to no longer track and pass around lock ids.
> One affect this change will have is changing the RegionObserver coprocessor's
> methods preBatchMutate and postBatchMutate from taking a
> {{MiniBatchOperationInProgress<Pair<Mutation, Integer>> miniBatchOp}} to
> taking a {{MiniBatchOperationInProgress<Mutation> miniBatchOp}}. I don't
> believe CPs should be relying on these lock ids, but that's a potential
> incompatibility.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
