[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11565?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14071051#comment-14071051
]
Jimmy Xiang commented on HBASE-11565:
-------------------------------------
bq. The synchronized (this) is safe? There is no risk to create a deadlock
somehow?
It is safe, no deadlock concern. Originally, it calls markClosed(e) directly,
which synchronizes on this too. So there is no change here as to
synchronized/deadlock here.
bq. Why do you think that interrupting the reader thread twice is bad? We would
leak some resources?
When the reader thread is interrupted for the first time, it could get out the
readResponse() call and move to close() call. So it could be calling
IOUtils.closeStream. My concern is such a call can throw an
InterruptedException and the remain part of the close() call is not executed.
The synchrononized here is to make things safer.
> Stale connection could stay for a while
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-11565
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-11565
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Client
> Reporter: Jimmy Xiang
> Assignee: Jimmy Xiang
> Attachments: hbase-11565-0.98.patch, hbase-11565-v1.patch
>
>
> In RpcClient, we cache the connection to each region server. When the
> connection goes bad, it stays in the cache till it's removed. Before it's
> removed, new calls will try to use it and just fail. The connection is a
> thread. It could be stuck in trying to receive some response. Before this
> receiving thread times out, it won't remove itself from the cache.
> It will be better to interrupt the receiving thread and let it clean up
> sooner.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2#6252)
