[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14268?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14951513#comment-14951513
]
stack commented on HBASE-14268:
-------------------------------
Are we into a new place where our patch builds are killing each other:
/home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/test-framework/dev-support/test-patch.sh:
line 838: 29466 Killed $MVN clean test
-Dsurefire.rerunFailingTestsCount=2 -P runAllTests -D${PROJECT_NAME}PatchProcess
We're ok: there is no zombie test
test-patch is doing this:
### Kill any rogue build processes from the last attempt
condemnedCount=`$PS auxwww | $GREP ${PROJECT_NAME}PatchProcess | $AWK '{print
$2}' | $AWK 'BEGIN {total = 0} {total += 1} END {print total}'`
echo "WARNING: $condemnedCount rogue build processes detected, terminating."
$PS auxwww | $GREP ${PROJECT_NAME}PatchProcess | $AWK '{print $2}' |
/usr/bin/xargs -t -I {} /bin/kill -9 {} > /dev/null
In this case it did this:
WARNING: 2 rogue build processes detected, terminating.
/bin/kill -9 29055
/bin/kill -9 29461
...and then our process was killed with this "test-patch.sh: line 838: 29466
Killed ".. Ours was a different PID
Maybe I should remove this killing code too only I've already removed killing
of surefirebooters that were running concurrently
> Improve KeyLocker
> -----------------
>
> Key: HBASE-14268
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-14268
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: util
> Reporter: Hiroshi Ikeda
> Assignee: Hiroshi Ikeda
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.0.0, 1.3.0
>
> Attachments: 14268-V5.patch, HBASE-14268-V2.patch,
> HBASE-14268-V3.patch, HBASE-14268-V4.patch, HBASE-14268-V5.patch,
> HBASE-14268-V5.patch, HBASE-14268-V6.patch, HBASE-14268-V7.patch,
> HBASE-14268-V7.patch, HBASE-14268-V7.patch, HBASE-14268-V7.patch,
> HBASE-14268-V7.patch, HBASE-14268-V7.patch, HBASE-14268-V7.patch,
> HBASE-14268.patch, KeyLockerIncrKeysPerformance.java,
> KeyLockerPerformance.java, ReferenceTestApp.java
>
>
> 1. In the implementation of {{KeyLocker}} it uses atomic variables inside a
> synchronized block, which doesn't make sense. Moreover, logic inside the
> synchronized block is not trivial so that it makes less performance in heavy
> multi-threaded environment.
> 2. {{KeyLocker}} gives an instance of {{RentrantLock}} which is already
> locked, but it doesn't follow the contract of {{ReentrantLock}} because you
> are not allowed to freely invoke lock/unlock methods under that contract.
> That introduces a potential risk; Whenever you see a variable of the type
> {{RentrantLock}}, you should pay attention to what the included instance is
> coming from.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
