[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17924?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15992324#comment-15992324
]
Hadoop QA commented on HBASE-17924:
-----------------------------------
| (x) *{color:red}-1 overall{color}* |
\\
\\
|| Vote || Subsystem || Runtime || Comment ||
| {color:blue}0{color} | {color:blue} reexec {color} | {color:blue} 0m 23s
{color} | {color:blue} Docker mode activated. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hbaseanti {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not have any anti-patterns. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} @author {color} | {color:green} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:green} The patch does not contain any @author tags. {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} test4tests {color} | {color:red} 0m 0s
{color} | {color:red} The patch doesn't appear to include any new or modified
tests. Please justify why no new tests are needed for this patch. Also please
list what manual steps were performed to verify this patch. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 6m
10s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 20s
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
25s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
25s {color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m 7s
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 53s
{color} | {color:green} master passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvninstall {color} | {color:green} 1m
28s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} compile {color} | {color:green} 1m 16s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javac {color} | {color:green} 1m 16s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} checkstyle {color} | {color:green} 1m
26s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} mvneclipse {color} | {color:green} 0m
24s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} whitespace {color} | {color:green} 0m
0s {color} | {color:green} The patch has no whitespace issues. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} hadoopcheck {color} | {color:green}
54m 59s {color} | {color:green} Patch does not cause any errors with Hadoop
2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.6.4 2.6.5 2.7.1 2.7.2 2.7.3 or 3.0.0-alpha2. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} findbugs {color} | {color:green} 4m
16s {color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} javadoc {color} | {color:green} 0m 49s
{color} | {color:green} the patch passed {color} |
| {color:red}-1{color} | {color:red} unit {color} | {color:red} 110m 7s {color}
| {color:red} hbase-server in the patch failed. {color} |
| {color:green}+1{color} | {color:green} asflicense {color} | {color:green} 0m
39s {color} | {color:green} The patch does not generate ASF License warnings.
{color} |
| {color:black}{color} | {color:black} {color} | {color:black} 190m 44s {color}
| {color:black} {color} |
\\
\\
|| Reason || Tests ||
| Timed out junit tests |
org.apache.hadoop.hbase.snapshot.TestSecureExportSnapshot |
| | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.snapshot.TestExportSnapshot |
| | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestRestoreSnapshotFromClient |
| | org.apache.hadoop.hbase.client.TestSnapshotFromClient |
\\
\\
|| Subsystem || Report/Notes ||
| Docker | Client=17.03.0-ce Server=17.03.0-ce Image:yetus/hbase:8d52d23 |
| JIRA Patch URL |
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12865857/HBASE-17924.v5.patch |
| JIRA Issue | HBASE-17924 |
| Optional Tests | asflicense javac javadoc unit findbugs hadoopcheck
hbaseanti checkstyle compile |
| uname | Linux d3a1929f0ba0 4.8.3-std-1 #1 SMP Fri Oct 21 11:15:43 UTC 2016
x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux |
| Build tool | maven |
| Personality |
/home/jenkins/jenkins-slave/workspace/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/component/dev-support/hbase-personality.sh
|
| git revision | master / 13b6fdf |
| Default Java | 1.8.0_121 |
| findbugs | v3.0.0 |
| unit |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6655/artifact/patchprocess/patch-unit-hbase-server.txt
|
| unit test logs |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6655/artifact/patchprocess/patch-unit-hbase-server.txt
|
| Test Results |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6655/testReport/ |
| modules | C: hbase-server U: hbase-server |
| Console output |
https://builds.apache.org/job/PreCommit-HBASE-Build/6655/console |
| Powered by | Apache Yetus 0.3.0 http://yetus.apache.org |
This message was automatically generated.
> Consider sorting the row order when processing multi() ops before taking
> rowlocks
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-17924
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-17924
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 2.0.0, 1.1.8
> Reporter: Andrew Purtell
> Assignee: Allan Yang
> Fix For: 2.0.0
>
> Attachments: HBASE-17924.patch, HBASE-17924.v0.patch,
> HBASE-17924.v2.patch, HBASE-17924.v3.patch, HBASE-17924.v4.patch,
> HBASE-17924.v5.patch
>
>
> When processing a batch mutation, we take row locks in whatever order the
> mutations were added to the multi op by the client.
>
> {noformat}
> RSRpcServices#multi -> RSRpcServices#mutateRows -> HRegion#mutateRow ->
> HRegion#mutateRowsWithLocks -> HRegion#processRowsWithLocks
> {noformat}
> Or
> {noformat}
> RSRpcServices#multi -> RSRpcServices#doNonAtomicRegionMutation ->
> HRegion#get
> | HRegion#append
> | HRegion#increment
> | HRegionServer#doBatchOp -> HRegion#batchMutate ->
> HRegion#doMiniBatchMutation
> {noformat}
>
> multi() is fed by client APIs that accept a RowMutations object containing
> actions for multiple rows. The container for ops inside RowMutations is an
> ArrayList, which doesn't change the ordering of objects added to it. The
> protobuf implementation of the messages for multi ops do not reorder the list
> of actions. When processing multi ops we iterate over the actions in the
> order rehydrated from protobuf.
> We should discuss sorting the order of ops by row key when processing multi()
> ops before taking row locks. Does this make lock ordering more predictable
> for server side operations? Yes, but potentially surprising for the client,
> right? Is there any legitimate reason we should take locks out of row key
> sorted order because the client has structured the request as such?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
