[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17653?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15870345#comment-15870345
 ] 

stack commented on HBASE-17653:
-------------------------------

[~toffer] Here is feedback that made me dig in on synchronization to try and 
tell a coherent story around it. From [~busbey] internal review... as part of 
an attempt at a backport:

{code}
hbase-rsgroup/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/rsgroup/RSGroupAdminServer.java
Line 2:

nit: incorrect header.
Line 348:

nit: doesn't the synchronized above mean only one balance will run at a time? 
so these RIT would be from e.g. server failure? Couldn't those happen after 
this point?
Line 405:

Throughout this class we're inconsistent with locking on the object returned 
from this call. From reading both this class' use, the interface 
RSGroupInfoManager, and the default implementation it's not clear to me what 
correct synchronized handling is supposed to look like.

However, we synchronize for removing groups but not adding them and sometimes 
when retrieving them, so my intuition is that something is incorrect.
{code}

and.....


{code}
hbase-rsgroup/src/main/java/org/apache/hadoop/hbase/rsgroup/RSGroupInfoManagerImpl.java
Line 2:

nit: incorrect header
Line 148:

what are we trying to protect by synchronizing these methods?

if it's rsGroupMap, we still have methods that make use of the map without a 
proper synchronization call.

reading through things, I think it's trying to keep updates to the reference 
for rsGroupMap atomic (since I *think* all the things written there are 
unmodifiable, which would make the unsynchronized access safe). It would be 
much clearer if we did that via an AtomicReference or atleast documented that 
this is what our intention is for all these synchronized methods.
{code}

Then, in rb [~Apache9] questioned synchronization here 
https://reviews.apache.org/r/56570/diff/1?file=1630642#file1630642line221  
RSGroupInfoManagerImpl is used by RSGroupAdminServer. It holds the monitor for 
RSGroupInfoManagerImpl across a set of operations making the reviewer think 
this method does not need synchronization.

Let me look back at the original and with your readers-should-not-be-blocked 
prescription, come up w/ a patch for here...

> HBASE-17624 rsgroup synchronizations will (distributed) deadlock
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: HBASE-17653
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17653
>             Project: HBase
>          Issue Type: Bug
>          Components: rsgroup
>            Reporter: stack
>            Assignee: stack
>
> Follow-on from HBASE-17624. HBASE-17624 made it so one thread only has access 
> to the rsgroup administrator. In tail of HBASE-17624 [~toffer] describes 
> scenario under which we  may end up in a deadlock (distributed). Let me 
> repeat [~toffer] comment...
> {code}
> Both read/write access can't be single threaded. Consider the situation:
> 1. move_rsgroup_servers is called
> 2. while #1 is happening rsgroup region is in transition (rpc thread in #1 
> holds monitor lock)
> 3. while #2 is happening meta is in transition.
> Balancer tries to figure out plan for meta region tries to get monitor lock 
> but can't. rpc thread task won't release monitor lock since rsgroup region 
> never gets assigned. rsgroup region never gets assigned because it can't 
> update meta with new state.
> There's a good chance this can be reproduce just by moving both rsgroup and 
> meta region onto the same RS and call move_rsgoup_servers on the same RS.
> A bunch different actors will query from group affiliation so we can't have 
> writes block reads.
> ....
> In the code prior to this patch the getter methods that retrieve group 
> information (getRSGroup, ofTable, OfServer, etc) don't require the monitor 
> lock so the deadlock cycle is broken.
> ....
> The methods that does mutations and updates to zk and hbase:rsgroup are 
> synchronized appropriately. Point me to where the incoherence is?
> {code}
> This issue is about testing/fixing/restoring rsgroup access. Will be back.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)

Reply via email to